LB 3061 
.03 
Copy 1 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BULLETIN 

Issued Weekly 
Vol. XX December 25, 1922 No. 17 

[Entered as second-class matter December 11, 1912, at the post office at Urbana, Illinois, under the 
Act of August 24, 1912. Accepted for mailing at the special rate of postage provided for in 
Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized July 31, 1918.] 



BULLETIN NO. 12 



BUREAU OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 

THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS AS A 

BASIS OF SCHOOL ORGANIZATION 

AND INSTRUCTION 

by 

Charles W- Odell 
Associate, Bureau of Educational Research 




PRICE SO CENTS 



PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA 

1922 



MonoaTaoh 



The Bureau of Educational Research was established ^y act 
of the Board of Trustees June 1, 1918. It is the purpose of the 
Bureau to conduct original investigations in the field of education, 
to summarize and bring to the attention of school people the results 
of research elsewhere, and to be of service to the schools of the 
state in other ways. 

The results of original investigations carried on by the Bureau 
of Educational Research are published in the form of bulletins. A 
complete list of these publications is given on the back cover of 
this bulletin. At the present time five or six original investigations 
are reported each year. The accounts of research conducted else- 
where and other communications to the school men of the state 
are published in the form of educational research circulars. From 
ten to fifteen of these are issued each year. 

The Bureau is a department of the College of Education. Its 
immediate direction is vested in a Director, who is also an instructor 
in the College of Education. Under his supervision research is 
carried on by other members of the Bureau staff and also by grad- 
uate students who are working on theses. From this point of view 
the Bureau of Educational Research is a research laboratory for the 
College of Education. 

Bureau of Educational Research 

College of Education 

University of Illinois, Urbana 



BULLETIN NO. 12 



BUREAU OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 



THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS AS A 

BASIS OF SCHOOL ORGANIZATION 

AND INSTRUCTION 



by 



Charles W. Odell 
Associate, Bureau of Educational Research 



PRICE 50 CENTS 



PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA 

1922 



. ^ 







TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PAGE 

Preface 5 

I. The Plan and Conduct of the Experiment 7 

II. Conditions at the Beginning of the Experiment 20 

III. The Efficiency of the Tw'o Groups of Schools as Meas- 

ured by the Rates of Progress of the Pupils 27 

IV. The Efficiency of the Two Groups of Schools as Meas- 

ured by the Achievements of the Pupils 41 

V. A Study of the Pupils Who Remained in School 

Throughout the Course of the Experiment 56 

VI. A Special Study of the Brighter and Duller Pupils 60 

VII. Results and Conclusions 64 

Appendix A. A Comparison of the Pupils Entering and Leav- 
ing School During the Experiment with the 

Total Number of Pupils 69 

Appendix B. The Reliability and Correlation of the Tests Used 

in this Experiment 72 

Appendix C. The Omnibus Test 78 



PREFACE 

How to use most effectively the information yielded by general 
intelligence tests is one of the most important questions before the 
educational world at the present time. Many of our leading educa- 
tional thinkers are urging that the children in our elementary schools 
be grouped into grades on the basis of their mental ages and divided 
into sections within the grade on the basis of intelligence quotients. 
Other educators maintain that this should not be done. In this 
monograph Dr. C. W. Odell presents the results of an investigation 
extending over nearly two years in which he has studied with unusual 
care certain of the questions involved in the proposal that we reor- 
ganize our schools on the basis of the results yielded by general 
intelligence tests. Because the questions studied are highly impor- 
tant it is felt that a somewhat detailed report is justified. In order 
to assist the reader in understanding the experiment the organization 
of the experimental schools has been described in detail. 

This investigation was undertaken at the invitation of Superin- 
tendent Peter A. Mortenson of Chicago. Its execution was made 
possible by the cooperation of Assistant Superintendent A. B. Wight 
and of certain principals and teachers in the Chicago public schools. 
To all who have cooperated in the course of the investigation the 
Bureau of Educational Research desires to acknowledge its indebt- 
edness. 

Walter S. Monroe, Director. 
November 10, 1922. 



THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS AS A BASIS OF 
SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND INSTRUCTION 

CHAPTER I 
THE PLAN AND CONDUCT OF THE EXPERIMENT 

The Problem. The experiment described in this bulletin was 
carried on in eight elementary schools in the city of Chicago. It 
was an attempt to answer the following question: What is the effect 
upon the efficiency of elementary schools of promoting and classify- 
ing pupils chiefly upon their mental ages and intelligence quotients 
as determined by group intelligence tests rather than according to 
the traditional method? It is recognized that this is really a double 
problem involving the question of a flexible system of promotion 
and classification upon any basis as compared with a non-flexible 
system, and also the question of using the results of group intelligence 
tests rather than some other basis for promotion and classification. 
The justification for combining these two questions is that the use 
of the results from group intelligence tests for the purposes men- 
tioned above necessarily involves a flexible system and hence the 
two questions may be considered as one from the standpoint of 
practical school administration. 

Definition of terms used in statement of problem. The 
"efficiency" of a school is the ratio of its output to the investment, or 
investment . Thc output or retum upon the investment is measured 
in terms of the achievements of the pupils and their rates of progress 
through the school system. The investment, as the term is used 
above, includes not only what might strictly be called investment 
but also the factors which affect the manner in which the investment 
proper is used. The "promoting" of pupils refers to their advance- 
ment from one half-grade to another. The "classifying" of pupils 
refers to their placement in the fast, average and slow sections into 
which each half-grade in the experimental schools was divided. 
The word "chiefly" is used in the statement of the problem because 
the information derived from group intelligence tests was supple- 

[7] 



mented by other data. The "traditional method" refers to the 
method of placement used in the group of control schools. Accord- 
ing to this method, promotion is determined by the pupil's final 
mark, which is usually a composite of the mark that he receives 
upon the final examination and that given by the teacher for his 
work during the term. In some cases the promotion indicated by 
the pupil's final mark is modified by the principal's opinion of his 
work or ability or by such considerations as chronological age, 
length of time already spent in the grade, number of pupils in the 
room, etc. This is the method which has been and still is the pre- 
vailing practice in the elementary schools of this country. 

Scope of study. This study was confined to elementary 
schools having sixteen^ or more teachers, which were organized in six- 
teen half-grades and in which pupils were promoted semi-annually. 
These schools were divided into an experimental and a control 
group of four each by Assistant Superintendent A. B. Wight. In 
making this selection, Mr, Wight endeavored to choose two groups 
of schools^ in which the investment factors should be approximately 
equal at the beginning of the experiment,^ Except in the plan of 
organization of the experimental schools, nothing was done to cause 
any change. 

This investigation was rather strictly Hmited to the study of 
the effect upon the "efficiency" of certain elementary schools of pro- 
moting and classifying pupils chiefly according to the data derived 
from the use of group tests of intelligence. There was no consid- 
eration of the desirability of discovering and segregating for in- 
structional purposes pupils of varying degrees of ability, except 
from the standpoint of their rates of progress and achievements in 
school. Neither was there any assumption that the plan used, 
which provided that pupils of different degrees of ability should 
complete the same course of study at different rates of progress, 



^In one of the control schools there were only fourteen teachers in charge of 
pupils who actually participated in the project. 

"The experimental schools were the Armour, Franklin, Holden and Moseiey. In 
the control group were the Alcott, Greene, Mark Sheridan and Webster. 

'A more complete comparison of the investment factors in the two groups of 
schools may be found in the dissertation of the same title and by the same writer as 
this bulletin. This dissertation is on file in the library of the University of Illinois. 

[8] 



was superior to a plan providing that the different groups of pupils 
should cover different courses of study. 

In this experiment the measurement of the achievements of 
the pupils was, with certain minor exceptions, limited to arithmetic 
and reading. As these are two of the most fundamental subjects 
studied in the elementary school, they were considered a fairly 
good measure of total achievement. 

The general plan of the experiment. The experiment be- 
gan in the autumn of 1920 and continued until the summer of 1922. 
As Table I shows, both intelligence and subject-matter tests were 
administered to the pupils of both groups of schools once each 
semester except that at the last testing only subject-matter tests 
were used. Also certain other data that seemed pertinent to the 
investigation were collected at each time of testing. After the first 
testing period the pupils of the experimental schools were promoted 
and classified upon the basis of the test results and the other data 
which had been obtained. After each of the later testing periods 
such adjustments were made as seemed advisable. No direct use 
was made of the test results or other data in the control schools. 
There was some opportunity for the teachers of this group of 
schools to make a more or less indirect use of the test results but 
they did not do so to a degree sufficient to affect the results of the 
experiment. By thus measuring the abilities and achievements of 
the pupils of the two groups of schools near the beginning and end 
of each semester the resulting data afforded a basis for comparing 
the effect of promoting and classifying pupils chiefly upon the re- 
sults obtained from the use of group tests of intelligence with that 
of promoting pupils according to the traditional method. 

The first tests were given in November, 1920, and the results 
used in promoting and classifying the pupils for the second semes- 
ter of 1920-21. The next testing occurred in May, 1921, and fur- 
nished the basis for the placement of the pupils for the following 
September. All new entrants were tested in September and assigned 
to their grades and sections as soon thereafter as possible. A gen- 
eral testing occurred again in December and was followed by the 
placement of the pupils for the second semester of 1921-22. The 
final testing was in May, 1922. In addition to these general testing 

[9] 



periods, small groups of absentees and new entrants were tested 
from time to time as seemed best. 

The tests were in all cases given by the regular teachers who 
had been prepared for this work by a careful program of meetings 
with discussion. The teachers were also given very detailed direc- 
tions. Rather extensive visiting by the writer while the tests were 
being administered showed that this program of preparation secured 
fairly uniform and correct procedure. Part of the scoring of the 
tests was done by the teachers and part by clerks in Assistant 
Superintendent Wight's office. The scoring was also checked suffi- 
ciently by the writer to warrant the beUef that it was fairly accurate. 
Most of the errors which were found were so small that they had 
no effect upon the placement of pupils. In the tabulation of test 
and other data the positive and negative errors balanced each other 
so as to leave no sensible Inaccuracy in the medians and other 
measures computed. 

The data collected. Table I shows the intelligence and 
achievement tests used at each date of testing. The scores made 
upon these tests were translated into mental* or achievement'' ages, 
as the case might be, and then further into intelligence^ and achieve- 
ment^ quotients. The mental ages and intelligence quotients used 



"^"^^Mental age is a term used to express the amount of intelligence possessed by an 
individual. The average score made upon an intelligence test by a large number of 
unselected children of any one given chronological age is said to be equal to a mental 
age of the given number of years. Thus, if on a given test the average score of six- 
year-olds is 25 points and that of .seven-year-olds is 30 points, a score of 25 points may 
be transmuted into a mental age of six years and one of 30 points into one of seven 
years. It is abbreviated M.A. 

^ ' ^Achievement age is used to express the amount achieved by an individual on 
a subject-matter test. The average score made by the children of a single mental age 
is taken to equal an achievement age of the same number of years. Thus, if the aver- 
age score of children of the mental age of ten years is 56 points, that score may be 
"■eiianged into an achievement age — abbreviated A.A. — of ten years. 

^The intelligence quotient is the ratio of the mental age to the chronological age, 
or M.A. divided by C.A. It is conventionally carried to two places and written without 
the decimal point. Thus a child who has a mental age of ten years and is eight years 
old has an intelligence quotient of 10 divided by 8, or 125. It is abbreviated I.Q. 

^The achievement quotient — abbreviated A.Q. — is the ratio of the achievement 
age to the mental age, or A.A. divided by M.A. It is written similarly to the I.Q. 
Thus a child whose achievement age is nine years and whose mental age is ten years 
has an achievement quotient of 9 divided by 10, or 90. 

[10] 



TABLE I. THE INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS USED 
IN THIS EXPERIMENT 



Date 

of 

Testing 


Grades 


Intelligence 
Tests 


Grades 


Achievement 
Tests 


Nov. 
1920 


IB-IIIB 


Indiana University Primer Scale 
(Pressey Primer) 


lA 


Indiana University First Grade 
Reading Vocabulary Test, 
Form A 




IB-IIIB 


Dearborn Group Tests of In- 
telligence 


IIB-IIIB 


Indiana University Scale of At- 
tainment No. 1, Form A 




IIIA-VIIIA 


National Intelligence Tests, 
Scale A, Form I 


IIIA-VIB 
VIA-VIIIA 


Monroe's Standardized Silent 
Reading Tests 
Form I, Test 1 
Form I, Test 2 




IIIA-VIIIA 


Illinois General Intelligence 
Scale, Form I 


IIIA-VIB 
VIA-VIIIA 


Monroe's General Survey Scale 
in Arithmetic 
Form I, Scale 1 
Form I, Scale 2 


May 
1921 


IB-IIIB 
IIIA-VIIIA 


Indiana University Primer Scale 

Illinois General Intelligence 
Scale, Form II 




The same tests were used as in 
November, 1920, except that 
Form B of the two Indiana 
Tests and Form II of the 
Monroe Tests were used. 


Sept. 
1921 


IB 

lA-IIIB 
IIIA-VIIIA 


Kingsbury Primary Group In- 
telligence Scale, Form A 

IndianaUniversityPrimerScale 

Illinois General Intelligence 
Scale, Form II 




The same tests were used as in 
May, 1921 


Dec. 

1921 


IB-IIIB 
IIIA-VIIIA 


Myers Mental Measure 

Illinois General Intelligence 
Scale, Form I 




The same tests were used as in 
November, 1920, except that 
Form III of the Monroe Tests 
was used. 


May 
1922 




None used. 


VIB-VIIIA 


The same tests were used as in 
November, 1920, except that 
Form B of the Indiana Vo- 
cabulary Test and Revised 
Form A of the Scale of At- 
tainment No. 1 were used. 

Omnibus Test* 



♦See Appendix C 

at the first time of testing were based upon the average of the two 
mental tests given at that time. 

The other items of information called for by the individual 
record cards used in this project were as follows: name, building, 
date of birth, sex, date of testing, school grade, chronological age, 
teacher's estimate, average school mark, attendance, and health mark. 

The teacher's estimate was an opinion as to the general capacity 
of the pupil regardless of whether this capacity was actually dis- 
played in regular school work or not. This estimate was expressed 



[11] 



in terms of the following five marks and the teachers were instructed 
to make their distributions accord fairly closely with that given 
below: 

S or S=superior — 5 to 10 percent 
E or 4==excellent — 20 percent 
G or 3^good — 40 to SO percent 
F or 2=fair — 20 percent 
P or l=poor — 5 to 10 percent 
The average school mark was the average of the pupil's marks 
upon the seven most important subjects of the course of study. It 
was based upon the grades on the monthly reports issued during 
the current semester previous to the date of testing and was 
expressed in terms of the same five marks that were used for the 
teachers' estimates. 

Attendance was given as the percent of school days from the 
beginning of the semester to the date of testing during which the 
pupil was present. The health mark was the teacher's opinion of 
the general health of the pupil and was expressed in terms of the 
same five marks that were used for teachers' estimates and average 
school marks. 

At the time of the first testing, the published norms and data 
for the transmutation of point scores upon the tests used into mental 
and achievement ages were in most cases based on a number of 
pupils not much larger, or even actually smaller, than the number 
taking the tests in this experiment. Hence it was decided that in 
the case of most of the tests used, the norms and tables for trans- 
mutation should be based upon the data obtained in this project.® 
The exceptions to this decision were the Illinois Examination, includ- 
ing the Illinois General Intelligence Scale and Monroe's Arithmetic 
and Reading Tests, and the Myers Mental Measure. These ex- 
ceptions were made because in the case of the Illinois Examination 
scores from about fifty thousand pupils were available,^ and in 
that of the Myers Mental Measure scores from about fifteen 
thousand pupils.^" 



^See complete dissertation for these transmutation tables and their derivation. 

^Monroe, W. S. A Report of the Use of the Illinois Examination, Form 1, with 
49,500 Pupils. Insert of School and Home Education, March, 1921. 8p. 

"Myers, C. E. and G. C. Measuring Minds. New York; Newson, 1921, p. 
23-4. 

[12] 



Principles of promotion and classification used at the first 
placement of the pupils. It was necessary to lay down certain 
principles which should be followed in the placement of the pupils, 
with the understanding that there would be need for exceptions 
in the cases of certain individuals. The inadvisability of following 
set rules too closely was due to several facts. Such procedure would 
result in entirely too great a change in the placement of some pupils. 
Moreover, the data secured from the tests and from other sources 
could not be relied upon as being absolutely accurate, and in some 
cases were so conflicting that disagreements between any detailed 
principles laid down were sure to occur. In view of these facts it 
must be understood that the principles enumerated below were not 
adhered to absolutely and that there were exceptions of many 
sorts that it is impracticable to list. The principles formulated for 
the first placement of pupils, which was for February, 1921, are 
given below. 

I. The use of the data derived from the intelligence tests. 

1. The chief bases of placement were the mental ages and 
intelligence quotients. The mental ages were used to 
determine the half-grades in which the pupils should be 
placed, and the Intelligence quotients to determine the 
sections, subject to such modifications as may be given 
in II. 

2. In general, the mental age norm for each half-grade was 
the median mental age of this half-grade group for the 
experimental schools. If the median mental age of a 
particular half-grade group In any one school was dis- 
tinctly above or below the median of the four schools, 
a rough average of the two medians was used. This 
was done because it was considered desirable to make 
some progress toward reducing the range of ability 
within a given half-grade group for the experimental 
schools, but not to do so without regard to the ability 
actually found In the half-grades of the several schools 
as they were at the beginning of the experiment. Rather 
wide mental age limits were used for each half-grade 
group, with the expectation that as the experiment pro- 
gressed they would be narrowed. 

[13] 



3. In general, demotion was recommended only when a pupil's 
mental age was at least two years below the median of 
the grade in which he was found, and extra promotion 
only when it was at least several months higher than the 
median of the grade in which extra promotion would 
place him. In no case was a pupil recommended for 
skipping more than two semesters' work nor for being 
demoted more than one. 

4. Pupils whose intelligence quotients were above 110 were 
usually placed in the fast sections, those with I. Q.'s be- 
low 85 in the slow sections and the remainder^^ regularly 
composed the average sections. However, in many cases 
pupils' mental ages were several months above the 

■ medians of the half-grades in which normal promotion 
would place them, while their I. Q.'s were below 85. In 
such cases they were usually given normal promotion to 
the average section of the next half-grade. Similar ex- 
ceptions were made in connection with other ranges of 
mental ages and intelligence quotients. 

5. In some cases where the mental ages and intelligence quo- 
tients were rather low, it appeared probable that the 
pupils had either misunderstood directions upon one of 
the two intelligence tests or, had not, through some other 
cause, done themselves justice upon one of them. In 
such cases their scores on the other test were given more 
than half weight in determining their placement. 

II. Th^ use of the other data obtained. 

1. Most of the other items recorded upon the individual 
record cards were given consideration. Low teachers' 
estimates and average school marks rarely pre- 
vented promotion in cases where the mental ages seemed 
to warrant it. In doubtful cases the question of whether 



"Inasmuch as the intelligence quotients obtained in this project were derived 
from group intelligence tests they had a somewhat greater spread than those derived 
from individual tests. Therefore the percent of pupils with I.Q.'s from 85 to 110 was 
somewhat less than that usually found between 90 and 110 when individual tests are 
used. 

[14] 



a single or a double promotion should be given was, 
however, frequently decided by the teachers' estimates 
and average school marks. 

2. On the other hand, even though their mental ages were 
low enough to merit demotion, very few pupils were 
failed whose teachers' estimates and average school 
marks were "good" or better, and not very many were 
failed if either one of the two was this high. 

3. In making use of the teachers' estimates of capacity 
and the average school marks it was found that those 
of some teachers ran much higher than those of others 
in cases where the mental and achievement ages of the 
two groups of pupils showed little difference. That is, 
a teacher's estimate or school mark of "fair," for in- 
stance, given by one teacher might be fully equal to 
one of "good" given by another. In making use of 
these two items an allowance was made for this fact. 

4. In cases of marked disagreement between the evidence 
afforded by the test data and that given by the teachers' 
estimates and school marks, the achievement test scores 
were frequently the deciding factor in placement. 

5. In doubtful cases the teachers' estimates of health some- 
times determined placement, but were not a major 
factor. 

III. Pupils not classified. 

1. Since all promoted VIIIB and VIII A pupils would 
leave the schools concerned before the close of the ex- 
periment, no recommendations were made in the case 
of any pupils of these grades. 

2. Pupils in open-air and ungraded rooms were recom- 
mended for promotion and classification according to 
the same principles used for the other pupils, but it was 
not expected that they would actually be placed in exact 
agreement with the recommendations. 

An illustration of the application of these principles of 
promotion and classification. In order to illustrate the actual 
application of these principles, the following sample taken from the 

[15] 



TABLE II. SAMPLE OF THE PROMOTION LISTS MADE OUT FOR THE 
BEGINNING OF THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1920-21 



Pupil 
Number 


M.A. 


I.Q. 


A.A. 


T.E.* 


School 
Mark 


Health 

Mark 


Placement 
of Pupil 


1 


6.6 


73 


8-8 


1 


1.8 


3 


IIIA slow 


2 


7.7 


66 


7-10 


2 


1.7 


3 


IVB slow 


3 


11.3 


110 


10-8 


4 


3.8 


3 


VB average 


4 


8.0 


85 


9-6 


2 


2.7 


4 


IVB fast 


5 


11.3 


100 


11-10 


3 


3.0 


4 


VB average 


6 


9.1 


106 


9-8 


3 


3.5 


3 


IVA average 


7 


9.2 


95 


8-8 


3 


3.1 


3 


IVA average 


8 


10.2 


105 


9-8 


3 


3.0 


3 


IVA average 


9 


10.6 


78 


11-10 


3 


3.0 


4 


IVA slow 


10 


8.8 


71 


10-0 


2 


2.0 


1 


IV B slow 


11 


4.7 


40 


7-4 


1 


1.0 


3 


IIIA slow 


12 


10.0 


72 


8-10 


2 


2.0 


3 


IVA slow 


13 


12.3 


109 


11-6 


3 


3.0 


3 


VB fast 


14 


10.4 


91 


11-2 


3 


3.0 


4 


IVA average 


15 


10.4 


80 


8-0 


3 


2.8 


2 


IVA slow 


16 


8.7 


106 


9-0 


2 


2.7 


4 


IVA average 


17 


10.2 


69 


13-0 


3 


3.0 


4 


VB average 


18 


9.2 


106 


8-6 


3 


3.2 


3 


IVA average 


19 


8.6 


85 


8-4 


2 


1.5 


1 


IVB slow 


20 


11.2 


100 


11-10 


4 


4.0 


4 


VB average 



♦Teacher's Estimate. 



lists actually made out is given and discussed. These lists were 
later submitted to the principals and teachers, as has been men- 
tioned previously, and any changes that seemed best were made. 

Since the sample in Table II is a portion of the list for the 
pupils who were in the IVB grade during the first semester of 
1920-21, the median mental and achievement ages^^ for the half- 
grade groups into which IVB pupils were likely to be placed are 
given below. 

IVB IVA VB 

9.6 9.8 10.8 

9-1 9-2 10-6 

The mental ages of Nos. 1 and 11 were so low that it was 
evident they should be demoted. This was corroborated by the 
low teachers' estimates and average school marks given them. Their 
I. Q.'s clearly indicated that they belonged in the slow section. 
Nos. 2, 10 and 19 had mental ages considerably below the IVB 
median and I. Q.'s of 85 or below. As their teachers' estimates 
and school marks were also fairly low they were kept in their grade 



Grade 
Mental Age 
Achievement Age 



IIIA 

8.1 

7-4 



"See Table III. 



[16] 



and placed in the slow section. No. 12 had a mental age above 
the IVB median, but an I. Q. of only 72, so he was recom- 
mended for the IVA slow section. Although No. 4's mental 
age and I. Q. were low enough to indicate that he belonged 
in the IVB slow section his fairly good achievement age and his 
school mark of 2.7 resulted in his being placed in the fast section 
of that grade. This was done to prevent him from having to repeat 
work during the whole of the next semester and with the expecta- 
tion that he would soon drop back into an average or slow section. 
The mental ages of Nos. 9 and 15 seemed to entitle them to extra 
promotion but as their teachers' estimates and school marks were 
only about average they received merely normal promotion into 
the IVA grade. Because of their low I. Q.'s they were placed in 
the slow section. In the case of the six pupils placed in the average 
section of IVA there was little doubt as to where they belonged 
except that No. 16 had a mental age almost a year below the IVA 
median. His rather high I. Q. and average school mark led to the 
decision not to prevent his advancement. Nos. 8 and 14 might have 
been considered for extra promotion had their teachers' estimates 
and school marks been higher. Nos. 3 and 20 were clearly entitled 
to extra promotion on the basis of all the data and No. 5 was only 
slightly less deserving. The I.Q. of the first would have caused 
his placement in the fast section but it happened there were riot 
enough pupils in the school of similar ability to justify the forma- 
tion of a fast section in grade VB. Therefore all three were placed 
in the average section of that grade. No. 17 was also given extra 
promotion. In his case a chronological age of almost 16 years and 
a high score on the achievement tests were potent clauses. For the 
same reason he was placed in the average rather than the slow 
section, although his I. Q. was only 69. No. 13 would probably 
have been given two semesters of extra promotion instead of one 
except for the fact that his teacher's estimate and school mark 
were only 3. As it was he was given one extra promotion and 
placed in the fast section of the grade. 

Supplementary principles of promotion and classification 
used at the second and third periods of placement of the 
pupils. At the second and third periods of placement — that is, 
for September, 1921, and February, 1922, — a majority of the pupils 

[17] 



placed at the beginning of the second semester of 1920-21 received 
normal promotion into the next half-grade and remained in the 
corresponding section. Unless the new data clearly indicated that 
the pupil had been placed improperly in February, 1921, this course 
was followed. Certain additional principles were adopted to care 
for those pupils who seemed to have been improperly placed. These 
principles were as follows: 

1. In the cases of a number of the pupils given extra promo- 
tion at the beginning of the previous semester, their school 
marks and achievement ages following this promotion did 
not appear to justify It. If, however, their mental ages as 
shown by the later testing were high enough to justify their 
retaining the extra promotion given and also receiving nor- 
mal promotion at the later date, such promotion was usually 
given. This was done on the assumption that after skipping 
the work of one or more semesters It might require more 
than one semester for them to "find themselves." 

2. Pupils previously promoted or placed In fast sections despite 
their low school marks were failed If their school marks still 
continued to be unsatisfactory.^^ 

3. Many pupils who had received only a part of the extra pro- 
motion that they seemed to deserve in February, 1921,^* 
were given further extra promotion, If their later scores justi- 
fied so doing. 

4. In cases where the test scores of pupils varied greatly from 
those made at the previous testing period or periods, and 
the other evidence did not agree with one score more than 
the other, the scores were roughly averaged to provide the 
basis for placement. 

The final placement of the pupils. The writer made out 
his recommendations for placement, basing them upon the princi- 
ples listed above, some two or three weeks before the end of the 
semester. The lists were then submitted to the principals and 
teachers concerned for their consideration, and finally put into 



"Most of these seemed to be cases of laziness and lack of study. 
"These pupils had received only a part of their extra promotion in order to lessen 
the amount of work skipped at one time and thus make their advance easier. 

[18] 



effect. In two of the four schools the recommendations were dis- 
cussed individually, but in the other two this was not done, as the 
principals of those schools wished to make as complete a change 
as possible from the traditional method of procedure. The changes 
made as a result of this consideration amounted to about one per- 
cent of the total number of recommendations made. These changes 
were often due to the fact that a longer acquaintance with certain 
pupils caused the teachers to wish to revise the estimates of capacity 
or school marks which had been reported some time previously. 
Sometimes, however, the changes made represented a yielding on 
the part of the writer of his judgment, based largely upon the test 
results, to that of the principal or teacher, which was based upon 
the actual school work of the pupils and upon personal contact 
with them. In a few cases a change was made in order to place the 
pupil under a certain teacher so that he would be separated from a 
group of classmates. 

In planning this whole experiment and in formulating and using 
the principles of promotion and classification those in charge of the 
experiment were guided by the desire to do a practicable piece of 
work. That is to say, they wished to use a procedure which the 
average school administrator or supervisor would be willing and 
able to make use of in his own school. It was partly because of 
this desire that more thoroughgoing changes were not made in the 
placement of the pupils, especially after the first period of testing. 
It is true that some public school superintendents have carried out 
considerably more radical plans of reclassification than the one 
used in this experiment but it was believed that a plan that might 
be followed by a more conservative educator would be more worth 
while. 



[19] 



CHAPTER II 
CONDITIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EXPERIMENT 

Chronological age-grade placement in the two groups of 
schools. The chronological age-grade situation in November, 1920, 
showed that the retardation in the experimental schools was some- 
what greater than that in the control schools. The median age of the 
pupils of the experimental schools averaged, grade for grade, two- 
tenths of a year more than that for the other group. In only two 
of the half-grades was it lower. The percents of pupils accelerated, 
normally placed, and retarded were 9, 18 and 73, respectively, in 
the experimental schools as compared with 10, 21 and 69 in the 
control schools. These figures are based upon the Chicago stand- 
ard of normal progress, which is that a pupil should be from six to 
six and one-half years of age in grade IB, six and one-half to seven 
in grade lA and so on up. The average amount of retardation 
per pupIP was 1.14 years for the experimental schools and .96 year 
for the control schools. Assuming that pupils had entered the two 
groups of schools at the same average age, which the writer believes 
was the case, it is evident that the pupils in the control schools at 
the beginning of the experiment had made somewhat more rapid 
progress than had those In the experimental schools. 

Mental age and school placement in the experimental and 
control schools. As may be seen from Table III, the median 
mental ages in all except three of the half-grades were higher in the 
control than in the experimental schools. The average difference 
was slightly over one-half year of mental age. This difference was 
found in spite of the fact just mentioned above that the pupils of 
the control schools were grade by grade about two-tenths of a year 
younger than those of the other group. 

^The average amount of retardation was computed as follows: The number of 
pupils accelerated one-half year was multiplied by one-half, the number accelerated 
one year by one, and so on. The same process was carried out for those retarded and 
the sum found for each group of pupils. As the total number of years of retard- 
ation was greater than the total of acceleration, the latter was subtracted to give the 
net total of retardation. This was divided by the total number of pupils. 

[20] 



TABLE III. GRADE MEDIAN MENTAL AND ACHIEVEMENT AGES, 

INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT QUOTIENTS OF THE 

EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SCHOOLS, NOVEMBER, 1920 



Grade 


Mental Ages 


Intelligence 
Quotients 


Achievement 
Ages 


Achievement 
Quotients 




Exp. 


Cont. 


Exp. 


Cont. 


Exp. 


Cont. 


Exp. 


Cont. 


IB 


6.0 


6.4' 


88 


98 










lA 


7.5 


7.7 


100 


105 


7-3 


7-8 


97 


103 


IIB 


7.7 


8.7 


95 


110 


6-9 


7-8 


89 


87 


IIA 


8.2 


9.1 


92 


107 


8-5 


9-0 


104 


102 


IIIB 


9.0 


8.6 


100 


96 


10-1 


9-10 


113 


113 


IIIA 


8.1* 


8.3* 


77* 


84* 


7-4* 


7-10* 


110* 


110* 


IVB 


9.6 


10.0 


92 


102 


9-1 


9-0 


110 


102 


IVA 


9.8 


10.4 


92 


100 


9-2 


9-6 


104 


105 


VB 


10.8 


10.7 


93 


98 


10-6 


10-7 


106 


108 


VA 


10.0 


11.2 


85 


100 


10-1 


11-4 


112 


106 


VIB 


11.8 


11.8 


97 


96 


10-9 


11-8 


100 


105 


VIA 


12.6 


13.2 


101 


103 


11-3 


12-1 


105 


104 


VIIB 


12.5 


14.4 


99 


112 


11-6 


13-0 


105 


100 


VIIA 


13.2 


14.0 


102 


106 


11-11 


13-2 


107 


109 


VIIIB 


14.2 


14.8 


104 


110 


12-2 


14-4 


99 


109 


VIIIA 


15.4 


15.8 


111 


114 


13-7 


14-7 


99 


105 


All 


9.1 


9.7 


94 


103 


10-0 


10-8 


104 


103 



*The low M. A.'s and I. Q.'s found in grade IIIA were doubtless due to the fact that the 
Illinois General Intelligence Scale requires a degree of reading ability somewhat above that possessed by 
most IIIA pupils. 

**In grades IIIA to VIIIA a composite achievement age was obtained by averaging the achievement 
ages upon Monroe's arithmetic scale and in comprehension and rate upon his reading test. In obtaining 
this average each of the three was given equal weight. The same procedure was followed in the case of 
the achievement quotients. 

The inter-quartile ranges of the various grades were also com- 
puted. These showed an average range of two and one-tenth years 
for the experimental schools and two and two-tenths years for the 
control schools. Thus it appears that the grade groups in the ex- 
perimental schools were slightly more homogeneous than those in 
the control schools. Similarly, a slight advantage was shown by the 
coefficients of correlation of mental age and grade placement. These 
were .84±.01^ for the experimental schools and .82±.01 for the 
control schools. 

The intelligence quotients of the two groups of schools. 
Probably the best basis of comparing the mentality of the pupils 
of the two groups of schools is that of their intelligence quotients. 
Table III shows the medians for the two groups of schools. In all 
grades except IIIB and VIB the median I. Q.'s of the experimental 



*For convenience all probable errors smaller than .01 are given as .01 

[21] 



schools were lower than those of the control schools. The average 
difference was nine points, the medians for all grades combined 
being 94 and 103. This of course agrees with the fact just noted 
that the mental ages of the pupils of the experimental schools were 
lower, although their chronological ages were higher, than those of 
the other group. 

The extent to which the data derived from the tests afforded 
a true comparison of the quality of the pupil material of the two 
groups of schools depends upon the reliability of the tests used and 
the similarity of testing conditions in the two groups of schools. 
As is shown in Appendix B, the reliability of the intelligence tests 
was only fairly high, but there is no reason to think that the degree 
of reliability was different in the two groups of schools. Moreover, 
as has been stated in Chapter I, the writer's rather extensive visiting 
while the tests were being given and his examination of the test 
booklets after they had been scored afforded fairly reliable grounds 
for believing that there were no essential differences in the admin- 
istration of the tests in the experimental and in the control schools. 

The use of the control schools as a check group upon the 
experimental schools. If we assume that the difference in the 
amount and degree of intelligence found by the use of the intelli- 
gence tests was reliable, the question remains as to whether this 
difference was so great that the control schools could not be used 
as a valid check upon the experimental schools. A definite answer 
to this question cannot be given. Such data as are available con- 
cerning the mentality of pupils of different school systems appear 
to show that an average difference of about seven months of mental 
age or nine points I. Q. is not unusual. Probably the most exten- 
sive data available upon this point are those obtained from the use 
of the Illinois General Intelligence Scale.^ This scale was given to 
the pupils of ten cities and nine counties in the autumn of 1920. 
It was found that the differences between the median mental ages 
of the various grades of the single cities and counties concerned 
and the general medians for the corresponding grades were four 
months or more in 50 percent of the cases. The largest differ- 
ence was one year and three months. In terms of the I. Q. 50 

^Monroe, W. S. A Report of the Use of the Illinois Examination, Form 1, with 
49,500 Pupils. Insert of School and Home Education, March, 1921. 8p. 

[22] 



percent of the differences exceeded four points, the greatest being 
nineteen points. Differences as large as the average difference be- 
tween the two groups of schools in this experiment were found in 
about one-sixth of the cases. Moreover, it must be remembered 
that differences between the individual members of a group and 
the group median are, on the average, much less than the differences 
between the individual members of the group. On the other hand, 
the differences in this experiment were based upon the average 
scores from two tests and therefore would probably tend to be 
smaller than those based upon a single score. This latter factor 
would not more than balance the one mentioned in the previous 
sentence, however, and probably would not even do that. There- 
fore the writer feels justified in the opinion that the difference in 
mentality found to exist between the two groups of schools was 
not so great but that the question referred to above can be answered 
affirmatively, provided that this difference was measured and taken 
account of in interpreting the results of the experiment. 

The achievements of the two groups of schools. Table III 
also contains the median achievement ages for the various grades. 
It shows that the control schools were superior in all of the half- 
grades except IIIB and IVB. This average superiority was about 
eight months of achievement age, which is enough to indicate a 
decided superiority in pupil achievement on the part of the control 
schools. 

The achievement quotients, however, are really more signifi- 
cant measures than are the achievement ages. It is evident 
from Table III that on the whole the relation of achievement to 
capacity. In so far as the tests used measured this relation, was 
practically the same in the two groups of schools. This would be 
Inferred from a study of the mental and achievement ages. Such a 
comparison shows that the superiority of the control schools in 
achievement was just about the same as their superiority in intelli- 
gence. Thus from this standpoint the two groups of schools were 
capitalizing the capacities of their pupils almost equally in so far 
as the achievements measured were concerned. 

The correlation of achievement with intelligence in the 
two groups of schools. It is a belief of many educators that the 
achievements of pupils should be as closely related to their capaci- 

[23] 



ties as possible and that the degree to which this relation holds is a 
measure of the success of the school in adapting its work to the 
individual pupils. The achievement quotient measures this from 
one standpoint, but it may also be measured by computing the 
correlation of achievement with intelligence. For all grades com- 
bined the coefficients of correlation between absolute achievement 
and intelligence scores was .68d=.01 for the experimental schools 
and .60zt.01 for the control schools. That is to say, the experi- 
mental schools were securing achievement more nearly in propor- 
tion to pupil capacity than were the control schools. 

Another measure of the relation of achievement to intelligence 
may be obtained by computing the median achievement quotients 
for pupils of different levels of intelligence. This measure is based 
upon the assumption that the school should secure from all pupils 
the best work of which they are capable, and if it can not do this 
it should approach the standard as nearly for pupils of one level of 
intelligence as for those of another. 

Table IV presents the median achievement quotients for the 
pupils of different levels of intelligence in the two groups of schools. 
A study of this table reveals the fact that in both groups of schools 
the inferior pupils were achieving more in relation to their capacity 
than were the superior pupils, but that this tendency was somewhat 

TABLE IV. MEDIAN ACHIEVEMENT QUOTIENTS OF THE PUPILS 
OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE, NOVEMBER, 1920 



Intelligence Quotient* 


Achievement Quotients 








Experimental 


Control 


150-59 


104 


98 


140- 


95 


95 


130- 


102 


98 


120- 


102 


102 


110- 


101 


101 


100- 


102 


102 


90- 


104 


104 


80- 


103 


105 


70- 


107 


110 


60- 


113 


114 


50- 


109 


125 


All 


105 


104 



*0nly those levels of intelligence were included that had a sufficient number of cases to give fairly 
reliable medians. 



[24] 



less marked in the experimental schools. Further evidence to the 
same effect may be obtained from a comparison of the coefficients 
of correlation of the achievement and intelligence quotients. These 
were — .16±.01 for the experimental schools and — .28±.01 for 
the control schools. 

Teachers' estimates of capacity, average school marks 
and estimates of heaUh, in the two groups of schools. The 
pupil material of the two groups of schools may also be compared 
by means of the teachers' estimates, average school marks and 
health estimates. It is true that these measures are relatively sub- 
jective, but as there were almost one hundred teachers in each 
group of schools and as there was no apparent selection which 
would make one group of teachers more able to judge pupils than 
the other, these measures were probably fairly comparable for the 
two groups of schools. Taking the medians for all pupils, the 
teachers' estimates for the control group were two-tenths higher, 
the average school marks three-tenths higher, and the estimates of 
health two-tenths. Considering the three items together, the half- 
grade medians of the control schools were higher in about 50 
percent of the cases, those of the experimental schools in only about 
25 percent, and the two were equal in about 25 percent. The evi- 
dence afforded by these items is of value chiefly because it corrob- 
orates that obtained from the intelligence and achievement test results. 

Summary. The differences found to exist between the experi- 
mental and the control schools in November, 1920, at the beginning 
of the experiment, were on the whole large enough not to be neg- 
lected as due to chance or as of no consequence, but were not 
large enough to invalidate the use of the two groups of schools in 
this experiment. When contrasted with the control schools the 
experimental schools exhibited the following differences: 

1. .18 year greater retardation based on chronological age 
(1.14 years — .96 year) 

2. .6 year lower median mental age (9.7 years — 9.1 years) 

3. 9 points lower median I. Q. (103 — 94) 



[25] 



4. 8 months lower median achievement age in reading and 
arithmetic (10 years 8 months — 10 years) 

5. 1 point higher achievement quotient in reading and arith- 
metic (104— 103) 

6. .08 higher correlation of achievement with intelligence. 
(.68 — .60) 

7. .2 lower median teachers' estimate, school mark and estimate 
of health, averaged (3.3 — 3.1) 



[26 



CHAPTER in 

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE TWO GROUPS OF SCHOOLS AS 

MEASURED BY THE RATES OF PROGRESS 

OF THE PUPILS 

In Chapter I "efficiency" was defined as the ratio of the output 
to the investment. The output to be measured was Hmited to the 
achievements of the pupils and their rates of progress. As was 
stated, the various factors constituting investment were all approx- 
imately constant except that of the mental abilities of the pupil 
material. Therefore, the "efficiency" of the experimental and the 
control schools might be measured in terms of the ratios of the 
achievements of the pupils and their rates of progress to their 
mental abilities. This chapter presents the data dealing with the 
rates of progress of the pupils, and the relation of these rates to 
their mental abilities. 

The promotion and classification of the pupils for Feb- 
ruary, 1921. The information obtained from the testing in the 
four experimental schools in November, 1920, formed the chief 
basis for the placement of pupils for the succeeding semester, the 
second of 1920-21. This placement was made by the writer, fol- 
lowing the principles of promotion and classification enumerated 
in Chapter I. The first half of Table V shows the percents of pupils 
in each grade of the experimental schools gaining or losing various 
amounts as a result of this placement. It is to be interpreted as 
follows, using grade IIB as an example: 7 percent of the pupils 
in grade IIB during the first semester of 1920-21 were demoted 
one semester, that is, were placed in lA; 26 percent were 
failed and remained in IIB; 64 percent received regular 
promotion of one semester into IIA and 2 percent received an 
extra promotion and thus entered IIIB. It will be seen that on 
the whole the placement of the pupils in the experimental schools 
involved many more demotions and failures than extra promotions 
and that the percent of the pupils given normal promotion was not 
as great as is usual in school systems. Only 58 percent of the pupils 

[27] 



TABLE V. PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS PROMOTED, FAILED OR DE- 
MOTED THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMESTERS AT THE CLOSE OF 
THE FIRST SEMESTER OF 1920-21 





Experimental Schools 


Control Schools 


First 


Semesters Gained or Lost 


Semesters Gained or Lost 


Semester 






Grade 


-1* 





+1 


+2 


+3 


-1 





+ 1 


+2 


+3 


+4 


IB 




48 


49 


3 


1 




31 


68 


1 




.2 


lA 


17 


17 


48 


9 


9 




34 


60 


7 






IIB 


7 


26 


64 


2 




2 


9 


80 


9 






IIA 


1 


19 


70 


10 




.4 


16 


83 


.4 






IIIB 


2 


12 


75 


9 


1 




14 


82 


4 


1 




IIIA 


14 


31 


50 


3 


2 




32 


67 


1 






IVB 


4 


19 


57 


13 


8 




10 


82 


7 






IVA 


6 


19 


63 


6 


5 


1 


7 


88 


5 






VB 


4 


16 


53 


24 


3 




16 


79 


5 






VA 


16 


22 


55 


4 


1 




4 


95 


1 






VIB 


10 


28 


43 


15 


4 




11 


87 


2 






VIA 


11 


18 


59 


12 






16 


79 


5 






VIIB 


17 


23 


44 


16 






4 


96 


1 






VIIA 


8 


13 


75 


5 






18 


78 


4 






All 


6 


26 


58 


8 


2 


.3 


17 


79 


4 


.03 


.03 



* — 1 denotes one semester lost through demotion, O failure, +1 normal promotion, +2 one extra 
promotion, etc. 

received normal promotion, 32 percent less, and 10 percent more. 
The average amount of promotion per pupil^ was .74 semester. 
Probably the chief cause of the excess of demotions and failures 
and the low average promotion rate was the rather liberal promo- 
tion policy which had been pursued prior to the beginning of the 
project. Many decidedly inferior pupils were at the beginning of 
the experiment found to be almost up with normal pupils of the 
same chronological age, although they were unable to do satisfac- 
tory work as placed. Moreover, it had not been at all unusual to 
reward superior ability by allowing grades to be skipped. 

The second half of Table V shows the changes made in the 
placement of the pupils in the control schools at this time. These 
changes were made by the teachers and principals according to the 
usual practice, which in Chapter I was called the "traditional 
method." A much larger percent of the pupils received normal 
promotion than in the experimental schools, but only about one- 



'The average amount of promotion per pupil was computed by finding the total 
number of semesters of promotion given, subtracting therefrom the total number of 
semesters of demotion and dividing by the total number of pupils concerned. 



[28] 



half as many were demoted or failed or given extra promotion. 
The average amount of promotion per pupil was .87 semester. 

It is not fair, however, to compare the promotion rates of the 
two groups of schools directly according to the figures given above. 
The general assumption as to the promotion rate is that it should 
be one semester per semester for pupils of normal mentality who 
are properly classified and working to their full capacity with no 
hindering factors entering into the situation. For pupils whose 
mentalities are above or below normal and who are working under 
the same conditions as those mentioned for normal pupils the theo- 
retical rates of progress are proportionately above or below one 
semester per semester. For example, a pupil with an I. Q. of 125 
would be expected to advance one and one-fourth semesters per 
semester and one with an I. Q. of 80, four-fifths of a semester per 
semester. Thus to render the average promotion figures given in 
the preceding paragraphs strictly comparable each should be divided 
by the average or median I. Q. of the pupils concerned in order to 
bring both to the basis of what they would be for pupils of normal 
mentality, that is, pupils whose I. Q. is 100. 

The measure of progress obtained by dividing the actual average 
rate of progress per pupil by the median intelligence quotient of 
the pupils contributing to this average will be called the "progress 
quotient." It will be used as the true measure of progress through- 
out this study. Making use of this measure we have as the "pro- 
gress quotient" of the experimental schools .74 divided by .94, and 
for the control schools .87 divided by 1.03. Thus the "progress 
quotients" at this time were 79 for the experimental schools and 
84 for the control schools. The true difference in the promotion 
rate at the beginning of the experiment is thus seen to have been 
only .05 rather than .13 semester. This difference cannot be at- 
tributed to the operation of the experimental plan of organization 
but rather to conditions In the two groups of schools previous to 
the beginning of the experiment and to the preparation necessary 
before the project could be begun. 

The formation of the fast, average and slow sections. As 

a result of the placement In February, 1921, more pupils were placed 
in the slow sections and fewer In the fast sections than would 
usually be the case In most school systems. This was largely due 

[29] 



to the liberal promotion policy that had been pursued before the 
experiment was begun, and to the fact that the pupil material of 
the experimental schools was rather distinctly inferior — median 
I. Q. 94, first quartile 80, third quartile 107. The fast sections 
included 14 percent of the total number of pupils placed, the average 
sections 41 percent, and the slow sections 45 percent. 

The promotion and classification of the pupils for 
September, 1921. It was to be expected that after the experi- 
ment was under way a majority of the pupils in the experimental 
schools would make normal progress In the sections to which they 
had been assigned. The extent to which this expectation was ful- 
filled provided a measure of the efficiency of the previous placement. 
The supplementary principles of promotion and classification given 
in Chapter I suggest various reasons for the failure of many pupils 
to make such progress. 

Table VI, which is similar to the first part of Table V, shows 
the gains and losses resulting from the placement of the pupils In 
the experimental schools for September, 1921. For example, in the 
average section of grade VIA 5 percent of the pupils were placed 
back in the VIA slow section and thus lost one-third of a semester; 
17 percent placed in the VIIB slow section gained two-thirds of a 
semester; 63 percent placed In the VIIB average section gained one 
semester; 11 percent placed in the VIIB fast section gained one and 
one-half semesters and 4 percent placed in the VIIIA average section 
gained two semesters. 

At this time 64 percent of the pupils of the experimental schools 
were advanced to the corresponding section of the next grade, but 
as such advancement meant only two-thirds of a semester for the 
slow pupils and one and one-half semesters for the fast, there were 
only 41 percent of the pupils who gained just one semester. In 
addition to the 64 percent mentioned, 26 percent were placed In 
the next grade but In a different section, so that in all 90 percent 
of the pupils of the experimental schools were advanced to the next 
grade. The average progress earned by the pupils In the slow 
sections was .65 semester, that earned by those In the average 
sections was .94 semester, and that by the members of the fast 
sections 1.38 semesters. For all the pupils the average was .88 
semester. Dividing by the median I. Q.'s obtained from the Novem- 

[30] 



TABLE VI. PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL 
SCHOOLS GAINING OR LOSING THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMES- 
TERS DURING THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1920-21 



Grade 


Section 




Semesters Gained or Lost 




-lyi* 


-1 


-H 





+H 


^-^ 


+1 


+iy^ 


+IH 


+2 


+2}4 


IB 


Slow 
Average 








14 
21 


22 


60 
57 


226 






.4 


.4 


lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 




1 


4 

1 


4 

7 




46 
12 
4 


43 
58 
22 


2 

18 
65 




1 
1 


1 
1 
7 


IIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






6 

7 


S 
4 
3 




62 

18 

7 


23 
69 
24 


3 
62 




1 


3 


IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 




I 


5 
2 


2 


1 


70 
7 


25 
73 
20 


10 
76 




1 


2 
4 


IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


1 




6 


1 


1 


67 

22 

2 


24 
58 
32 


1 

17 
60 




1 
2 


4 


IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






14 

S 


2 
3 




68 
21 

1 


14 
63 

42 


1 

6 

51 


1 


1 
4 


1 


IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






10 
3 


2 




68 

23 

7 


22 
61 
21 


5 
71 






7 


IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


2 

1 


I 


7 

5 


6 




60 
12 


23 
59 


1 
13 




4 


5 


VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






6 

S 






63 
14 


30 

51 

4 


2 

30 
96 








VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


1 

1 




15 
6 






80 
17 


3 

52 
16 


1 
24 
84 








VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






13 


2 




70 
25 


10 

54 
20 


7 
16 
73 






2 
7 


VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






4 
S 






78 
17 

5 


19 
63 
20 


11 

75 




4 




VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






2 

1 






76 
12 


20 
79 


2 

8 

100 








VIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








8 
1 




40 
4 


52 
76 
6 


19 

94 








VIIIB 


Slow 
Average 






9 






90 
4 


2 
96 










All 


All 


.2 


.1 


4 


4 


1 


36 


41 


13 


.1 


1 


1 



* — \yi denotes a loss of one and one-third semesters, etc. 



[31] 



ber tests, the "progress quotients" were found to be 79, 92 and 118 
for the slow, average and fast sections, respectively. For all the 
pupils of the experimental schools the quotient was 93. 

Table VII shows the same data for the control schools as 
Table VI for the experimental. Of all the pupils in the control 
schools 80 percent were advanced just one semester. This percent 
is practically twice as large as that of the experimental schools, 
but is 10 smaller than the percent of pupils of those schools ad- 
vanced to the same section of the next grade. Only 6 percent of 
the pupils of the control schools received extra promotion, as com- 
pared with the 15 percent in the experimental schools, but 14 
percent were failed or demoted, as compared with only 8 percent 
in the latter group. The average progress in the control group 
was .92 semester. Dividing this by 1.02, a "progress quotient" of 
90 was obtained. Thus, although the average progress of the pupils 
of the control schools was .04 semester greater, their "progress quo- 
tient" was three points smaller. To make the comparison upon a strict- 
ly valid basis, however, the eifect of the pupils who left school and 
who entered school during the semester must be considered. Making 
the proper corrections for these pupils,^ the average rate of progress 

TABLE VII. PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE CONTROL SCHOOLS 

GAINING OR LOSING THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMESTERS 

DURING THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1920-21 







Semesters Gained or Lost 


Grade 
























-2 


-1 





+ 1 


+2 


+3 


+4 


+5 


IB 






45 


53 


2 








lA 




1 


15 


71 


13 


.4 






IIB 






17 


81 


1 








IIA 


1 




10 


88 


1 








IIIB 






12 


87 




.4 


1 


.4 


IIIA 




2 


16 


81 


.4 








IVB 






7 


85 


7 


1 






IVA 




2 


9 


88 


1 








VB 






11 


87 


2 


1 






VA 




1 


4 


83 


12 








VI B 






1 


90 


8 


1 






VIA 






9 


75 


16 








VIIB 






1 


90 


9 








VIIA 




.5 


2 


86 


11 








VIIIB 






4 


96 










All 


.1 


1 


13 


80 


6 


.2 


.1 


.03 



*See Appendix A. 



[32] 



of the pupils of the experimental schools was .02 semester less and 
their "progress quotient" four points larger than the corresponding 
figures for the pupils of the control schools. In other words, in so 
far as the progress of the pupils was concerned, the experimental 
schools were more efficient during the second semester of 1920-21 
than were the control schools. The difference in the "progress 
quotient" was just about large enough to balance the difference at 
the beginning of the experiment.^ Since this was the case, it cannot 
be assumed that the increased efficiency of the experimental schools 
In the matter of progress was necessarily due to the plan of organi- 
zation used. 

The relative size of the fast, average and slow sections. 
It was again deemed advisable to place many more pupils in the 
slow than in the fast sections. The facts that had made this neces- 
sary a semester earlier still exerted some influence upon the situa- 
tion. The percent of the pupils placed in fast sections at this time 
was 15, and the remainder were equally divided between the 
average and the slow sections. Thus there was an increase of one 
percent in the number of pupils placed in the fast sections and also 
of those in the average sections over the percents for the previous 
semester. 

The placement of the new entrants received by the experi- 
mental schools in September, 1921. The new entrants into 
the experimental schools in September, 1921, were tentatively placed 
in the average sections of the grades indicated by their previous 
school records, and later, after being tested, they were placed as 
the test results and the other data indicated. In the placement 
of pupils at this time no reclassification of the IB pupils was at- 
tempted, because the results obtained from the use of the Kingsbury 
Primary Group Intelligence Scale in that grade were so unsatisfac- 
tory that the writer deemed it unwise to make use of them. Table 
VIII shows that slightly over half of the pupils were not shifted 
at all, that 15 percent gained by the reclassification and 31 percent 
lost by it. The average change made amounted to a loss of .09 
semester, or a promotion of .91 semester from the grades in which 
these pupils were the previous semester. As the median I. Q. of 
the new entrants was 85, their "progress quotient" was 107. 

^See page 29. 

[33] 



TABLE VIII. PERCENTS OF THE NEW ENTRANTS INTO THE EXPERI- 
MENTAL SCHOOLS GAINING OR LOSING THE GIVEN NUMBER 
OF SEMESTERS BY THEIR RECLASSIFICATION 
IN SEPTEMBER, 1921 



Tempo- 


Semesters Gained or Lost 


rary 


























Grade 


-2/3 


-1/3 


-1 


-/a 





+/2 


+% 


+1 


+1>^ 


+ 1^3 


+2 


+ 2>^ 


IB* 


























lA 






27 


13 


53 






7 










IIB 




10 


2 


14 


52 


11 


2 


10 










IIA 




8 




35 


42 


8 




4 


4 








IIIB 




7 




7 


51 


21 




14 










IIIA 








23 


77 
















IVB 




10 


2 


17 


58 


6 




6 


2 








IVA 








38 


52 


5 










5 




VB 




7 




25 


53 


2 




14 










VA 




19 




21 


47 


8 


4 


2 










VIB 




9 




14 


59 






9 


5 






5 


VIA 




17 


13 


17 


43 






4 


4 








VIIB 


3 






12 


64 


15 




3 




3 






VIIA 




29 


7 


7 


50 








7 








VIIIB 




12 


31 


15 


42 
















VIIIA 










100 
















All 


.2 


9 


4 


18 


53 


7 


.2 


6 


1 


.2 


.2 


.2 



*As is explained in the text, the pupils in grade IB were not reclassified at this time. 

Only 9 percent of the new entrants at this time were placed 
in the fast sections. The average sections received 63 percent and 
the slow sections 28 percent. Combining the new entrants with 
the pupils who had been tested in the previous May the percent 
in the fast sections was 15, that in the average 45, and that in the 
slow 41. 

The promotion and classification of the pupils for Feb- 
ruary, 1922. The data obtained in December, 1921, were used 
to determine the placement of the pupils for the second semester 
of the school year. Table IX, which Is similar to Table VI, gives 
the percents of the pupils of the experimental schools gaining or 
losing various amounts during the first semester of 1921-22. There 
were 48 percent of the pupils advanced just one semester, as com- 
pared with 41 percent during the previous semester; 35 percent 
made less than one semester's progress and 17 percent made more, 
as compared with 44 and 15 percent previously. The percent of the 
pupils advanced to the corresponding section of the next higher 
grade was 79, whereas only 64 percent were so advanced a semester 
previously. The percent placed in some section of the next grade 



[34] 



TABLE IX. PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SCHOOLS 

GAINING OR LOSING THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMESTERS 

DURING THE FIRST SEMESTER OF 1921-22 



Grade 


Section 




Semesters Gained or Lost 








-m 


-1 


-% 


-W 


-H 





+li 


+^i 


+% 


+^i 


+1 


+1H 


+m 


+m 


+2 


+2H 


+2H 


IB 


Slow 
Average 












7 
24 






61 
12 




27 
62 








5 
2 






lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 




1 






3 


14 
6 
2 


8 
7 




65 




76 


12 


56 




7 
41 






IIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






2 




12 


4 


9 
4 


3 


58 


1 


86 


16 
2 


95 


I 


2 


4 


I 


IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


1 




4 




12 




8 
4 


10 


73 


5 


89 


8 


85 




2 






IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 




6 


S 


3 


2 


80 




84 


14 


98 




7 






IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


1 




1 




6 


7 


2 
8 


3 


82 




83 


10 


97 










IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






3 




4 


3 


2 
7 




79 


17 


84 


16 


83 




3 






IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






4 




1 




1 
3 




76 




78 


22 
5 


100 




10 






VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 




1 


5 




4 




4 




78 




85 


18 


100 




s 






VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 






6 


3 


2 


92 




85 


7 
1 


98 




4 


1 




VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








3 


1 


6 


7 




63 




87 


36 


97 










VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


1 


2 


S 






9 


5 




59 




75 


37 


100 




2 


4 




VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 




3 




4 




87 




94 


10 


100 




1 






VIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 






2 






74 




96 


26 


100 










VIIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






4 






2 


7 




83 




80 




100 




8 


17 




VIIIA 


Slow 
Average 














2 




100 




98 














All 


All 


.1 


.1 


1 


.02 


1 


6 


3 


.2 


23 


.2 


48 


5 


10 


.02 


2 


.2 


.02 



[35] 



was almost the same as before, being 89. The average progress 
per pupil was .72 semester for those in the slow sections, .87 
semester for those in the average and 1.49 semesters for the mem- 
bers of the fast sections. The respective "progress quotients" were 
84, 84 and 121. For all the pupils in the experimental schools the 
average progress was .90 semester and the "progress quotient" 91. 
The corresponding figures for the second semester of 1920-21 were 
.88 semester and 93, so it is apparent that the average progress 
was slightly greater and the "progress quotient" slightly less during 
the second semester of the experiment than during the first. 

Table X, which is similar to Table VII, shows the gains and 
losses of the pupils of the control schools according to their place- 
ment at this time. A comparison of these data with those for the 
experimental schools shows that, as before, a larger percent of the 
pupils of the control schools received normal promotion. The dif- 
ference, however, was not quite as great as the previous semester, 
the figures for this time being 82 and 48 percent as compared with 
80 and 41 percent. The percent of the pupils receiving extra pro- 
motion in the control schools was only half as large as it had been 
a semester earlier, whereas in the experimental schools the corre- 

TABLE X. PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE CONTROL SCHOOLS 

GAINING OR LOSING THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMESTERS 

DURING THE FIRST SEMESTER OF 1921-22 





Semesters Gained 


or Lost 






Grade 










-3 


-2 


-1 





+ 1 


+2 


+3 


IB 








33 


64 


2 


.2 


lA 








19 


80 


.5 




IIB 








14 


82 


3 




IIA 








17 


83 


1 




IIIB 


.3 




.3 


6 


91 


3 




IIIA 








20 


80 






IVB 








10 


83 


7 




IVA 








6 


92 


2 




VB 








10 


84 


4 


2 


VA 






1 


6 


91 


3 




VIB 




1 




11 


85 


4 




VIA 


1 






13 


82 


4 


1 


VI IB 








11 


88 


1 




VIIA 






1 


8 


79 


13 




VIIIB 








9 


91 






VIIIA 


1 




2 


9 


89 






All 


.1 


.03 


.1 


14 


82 


3 


.2 



[36] 



spending percent was slightly larger. The percent of failures and 
demotions in each group was practically the same as before. The 
average progress per pupil in the control schools was .88 semester 
and the "progress quotient" was likewise 88. Hence the average 
progress was .02 semester greater in the case of the experimental 
schools and the "progress quotient" three points greater. Had it not 
been for the new entrants and eliminees, the difference in average 
progress would have been .01 semester greater. Thus it can be 
said for the second semester of the experiment, as for the first, that 
in so far as the progress of the pupils was concerned, the experi- 
mental schools were somewhat more efficient than were the control 
schools. 

The classification into fast, average and slow sections for 
the second semester of 1921-22. The percents of the pupils 
placed in the sections at this time differed rather markedly from 
those for previous semesters. The percent placed in the fast sections 
showed only a slight decrease, but that in the slow sections de- 
creased about one-third. The percents were 13 in the fast sections, 
57 in the average and 30 in the slow sections. These figures give 
evidence that as the experiment progressed it was possible to place 
pupils more nearly as would be expected from theoretical consid- 
erations. 

The promotion and classification of the pupils for 
September, 1922. After the testing in May, 1922, which was the 
last during the experiment, the pupils of the experimental schools 
were placed for the first semester of 1922-23. Table XI, which is 
similar to Tables VI and IX, shows the gains and losses of the 
pupils of the experimental schools during the second semester of 
1921-22, There were 55 percent of the pupils who gained just one 
semester as compared with 48 percent during the previous semester, 
28 percent who made less than one semester's progress as compared 
with 35 percent, and 17 percent who made more, the same as the 
previous semester. Only 58 percent of the pupils were advanced 
to the corresponding section of the next higher grade as compared 
with 79 percent a semester previously. The percent placed in some 
section of the next grade was 89, just the same as it had been. 
The average progress per pupil was .62 semester for those in the 
slow section, .98 semester for those in the average, and 1.39 for 

[37] 



TABLE XL PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL 
SCHOOLS GAINING OR LOSING THE GIVEN NUMBER OF 
SEMESTERS DURING THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1921-22 



Grade 


Section 


Semesters Gained or 


JQ%X. 


-IK 


-1 


-Vi 


-Yi 





+K 


+^ 


+% 


+1 


+1K 


+1K 


+2 


+2H 


+2K 


IB 


Slow 
Average 










37 
12 






46 
22 


17 
66 












lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 




30 

20 

3 


33 




5 


36 
69 
21 


11 

66 




.3 
5 






IIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








10 


9 






90 


75 
21 


4 
79 




12 






IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








S 


5 






94 


81 
4 


12 

83 


2 


2 
13 






IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








19 


12 






81 


81 
16 


7 
65 




18 






IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








11 


S 






89 


79 


14 

95 




2 




S 


IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








6 


5 






94 


77 
19 


18 

78 




4 






IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 




1 




6 


6 






94 


82 


8 
100 




3 






VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


1 






3 


2 






96 


93 


4 
100 




1 






VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 










3 






100 


86 


7 




3 






VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 










2 






99 


85 
8 


6 

92 




6 


1 




VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 










S 




6 


100 


83 
18 


6 
82 










VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








3 


3 






26 


92 
31 


2 
63 


71 


2 
6 






VIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








6 








94 


89 


8 
100 




3 






VIIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








3 


4 






97 


96 
38 






63 






VIIIA 


Slow 
Average 










4 








100 
96 












All 


All 


.03 


.03 


.03 


1 


6 


1 


.2 


20 


55 


14 


1 


2 


.03 


.03 



[38] 



members of the fast sections. The respective "progress quotients" 
were 76, 98 and 114. For all pupils of the experimental schools 
the average progress was .94 semester and the "progress quotient" 
97. These figures show both greater actual progress and greater 
progress relative to ability than was made during either of the 
previous semesters. 

Table XII, which is similar to Tables VII and X, shows the 
gains and losses of the pupils of the control schools for this semester. 
Again more pupils of the control schools received normal promo- 
tion than was the case in the experimental schools, the difference, 
however, being smaller than it was in either of the previous semes- 
ters. The percent of the pupils receiving extra promotion was 
only one-third as large as in February, 1922, whereas in the 
experimental schools it was the same. The percent of failures and 
demotions in the control schools was slightly less than in February, 
the decrease being in about the same ratio as that in the experi- 
mental schools. The average progress per pupil in the control 
schools was .89 semester and the "progress quotient" 86. Thus 
the average progress was .05 semester greater in the case of the 
experimental schools and the "progress quotient" eleven points greater. 

TABLE XII. PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE CONTROL SCHOOLS 

GAINING OR LOSING THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMESTERS 

DURING THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1921-22 





Semesters Gained or Lost 




Grade 






-1 





+ 1 


+2 


-1-3 


IB 




8 


69 


23 




lA 


.4 


18 


81 


1 




IIB 




16 


83 


2 




IIA 




10 


90 






IIIB 




8 


91 


1 




IIIA 




24 


75 


1 




IVB 




8 


90 


2 




IVA 




10 


90 






VB 




13 


86 


1 


1 


VA 




6 


94 






VIB 




8 


92 






VIA 




7 


92 


1 




VIIB 


3 


9 


85 


1 


1 


VIIA 




16 


83 


1 




VIIIB 




17 


83 






VIIIA 




5 


95 






All 


.2 


12 


87 


1 


.1 



[39] 



The new entrants and eliminees did not affect these differences. 

The classification into fast, average and slow sections 
for the first semester of 1922-23. The percents of the 
pupils placed in the sections for September, 1922, again differed 
considerably from those for previous semesters. The percent in 
the fast sections was practically the same, 14, but that in the average 
sections rose to 68 and that in the slow sections dropped to 18. Thus 
the tendency already noted for the fast and slow sections to ap- 
proximate each other in size was continued as the experiment 
progressed longer. Probably the distribution at this time was about 
what it should be, as there will always be more pupils belonging 
in slow sections because of not realizing their highest possible 
achievement than there will be pupils belonging in fast sections 
because of doing more than should be expected of them. 

Summary. As a result of the placement of the pupils at the 
beginning of the experiment the "progress quotient" for the experi- 
mental schools was, at that time, five points smaller than that for 
the control group. During the course of the experiment this situa- 
tion was reversed. Averaging the "progress quotients" for the three 
semesters, those for the experimental group were the larger by 
about six points. Thus the net result of the experimental plan of 
organization in so far as progress was concerned was favorable. 
The greater degree of efficiency of the experimental schools seems 
to have been due to the operation of this plan. 



[40] 



CHAPTER IV 

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE TWO GROUPS OF SCHOOLS AS 

MEASURED BY THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PUPILS 

In Chapter III, one of the two factors which were taken as 
constituting output has been discussed. In this chapter the other 
factor, that of achievement, will be considered both absolutely and 
in its relation to capacity. It has been shown in the preceding 
chapter that there was an increase in the "progress quotient" of 
the experimental schools as compared with that of the control 
schools. Therefore if a study of the achievements of the pupils of 
the two groups of schools shows that those of the experimental 
schools were either equal to or greater than those of the control 
schools, it may be said that the experimental schools were more 
efficient than the other group during this experiment. 

The gains in absolute achievement during the second 
semester of 1920-21. Table XIII gives the median achievement 
ages of the grades and sections of the two groups of schools at the 
beginning and end of the second semester of 1920-21. A compari- 
son of the first and fourth columns shows that at the beginning of 
this semester the median achievement age of the control schools 
was four months greater than that of the experimental schools, 
while at the end of this semester the median ages were the same. 
In other words, the gain in achievement age on the part of the 
experimental schools was four months more than that of the control 
schools. The cause of this increase cannot be stated with certainty. 
There are at least two explanations that may account for it. One 
of these is that it resulted from the same causes which accounted 
for a similar increase in the mental ages. The increase in the 
median mental age of the pupils of the experimental schools was 
five-tenths of a year greater during this semester than was that of 
the control schools. In the opinion of the writer the most potent 
cause of the greater increases in both mental and achievement ages 
on the part of the experimental schools was the fact that both the 
teachers and the pupils of those schools felt a very high degree of 

[41] 



TABLE XIII. MEDIAN GRADE AND SECTION ACHIEVEMENT AGES 

OF THE PUPILS OF THE TWO GROUPS OF SCHOOLS AT THE 

BEGINNING AND END OF THE SECOND SEMESTER 

OF 1920-21 



Grade 


Section 


Experimental 




Control 




Beginning 


End 


Gain* 


Beginning 


End 


Gain 


lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


6-4 
6-8 
S-6 


10-5 
10^ 
10-10 


49 
44 
64 


6-2 


10-0 


46 


IIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


6-4 
6-5 
8-6 


8-8 

9-10 

8-4 


28 
41 

-2 


7-11 


8-0 


1 


IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


6-7 
7-7 
8-1 


9-5 

9-10 

9-6 


34 
27 
17 


7-10 


9-7 


21 


IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


8-2 

8-11 

8-8 


10-10 

10-7 

11-1 


32 
20 
29 


9-0 


10-9 


21 


IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


9-1 
10-1 
9-10 


9-1 
10-1 
9-8 






-2 


9-8 


10-1 


5 


IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


8-11 
10-0 
9-11 


10-8 
10-7 
12-6 


21 

7 

31 


9-1 


10-10 


21 


IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


9-5 
10-7 


11-7 
14-0 


26 
41 


10-0 


10-0 





VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


9-8 
lO-lO 
10-10 


12-1 
13-4 
13-2 


29 
30 
28 


10-7 


12-2 


19 


VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


10-i 
11-5 
13-0 


11^ 
13-6 
14-7 


12 
25 
19 


11-5 


13-4 


23 


VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


10-0 

11-10 

13-6 


12-1 

12-10 

15-1 


25 
12 
19 


12-0 


13-8 


20 


VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


11-11 
12-8 
lS-0 


14-5 
15-1 
15-0 


30 
29 



12-1 


13-10 


21 


VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


12-5 
12-S 
15^ 


15-5 
16-6 
17-0 


36 
49 
20 


14-2 


14-8 


6 


VIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


12-7 
13-6 
16-1 


14-11 
17-8 
18-5 


28 
50 
28 


15-0 


16-1 


13 


VIIIB 


Slow 
Average 


11-11 
14-0 


13-6 
16-7 


19 
31 


15-1 


16-1 


12 


All 


All 


10-0 


11-6 


18 


10-t 


11-6 


14 



*The gains are given in terms of months. 



[42] 



TABLE XIV. MEDIAN GRADE AND SECTION ACHIEVEMENT QUO- 
TIENTS OF THE TWO GROUPS OF SCHOOLS AT THE BEGINNING 
AND END OF THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1920-21 



Grade 


Section 


Experimental 


Control 


Beginning 


End 


Gain 


Beginning 


End 


Gain 


lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


103 
88 
65 


116 
118 

128 


13 
30 
63 


91 


117 


26 


IIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


93 

86 

103 


100 
109 
lOS 


7 

23 

2 


99 


95 


-4 


IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


89 
92 
88 


112 
111 
110 


23 
19 
22 


90 


111 


21 


IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


HI 

106 
103 


120 
111 
112 


9 

S 
9 


103 


118 


IS 


IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


114 
114 

108 


104 

lis 

104 


-10 

1 

-4 


lis 


112 


-3 


IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


111 
106 
106 


106 
106 
108 


-S 

-0 

2 


110 


112 


2 


IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


107 
106 


110 
118 


3 
12 


103 


103 





VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


109 
108 
98 


112 
109 
108 


3 

1 
10 


lOS 


110 


5 


VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


106 
110 
lOS 


108 
116 
118 


2 
6 
13 


106 


112 


6 


VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


102 
104 
110 


110 
108 
106 


8 

4 

-4 


109 


114 


5 


VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


lis 

108 

lis 


119 
118 
121 


4 
10 
6 


lOS 


lis 


10 


VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


108 
lOS 
lOS 


120 
122 
117 


12 
17 
12 


103 


108 


s 


VIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


108 
103 
lOS 


106 
119 

122 


-2 
16 
17 


101 


113 


12 


VIIIB 


Slow 
Average 


99 
93 


104 
113 


S 
20 


lOS 


111 


6 


Ail 


All 


106 


112 


6 


104 


112 


8 



interest in the results of the tests because they knew that placement 
was largely dependent upon these results. On the other hand, the 
teachers and pupils of the control schools knew that no direct use 
would be made of the test results, hence naturally took less interest 



[43] 



in the testing. The other explanation is that the experimental plan 
of organization caused the increase. Inasmuch as there is generally 
a fairly high correlation between the scores made on intelligence 
tests and those on subject-matter tests, especially in the case of 
verbal intelligence and reading tests, the writer believes that the 
first explanation is the true one or at least more nearly so than the 
latter. It is not unlikely that both had a part in causing the rela- 
tive increase. 

The achievement quotients at the beginning and end of the 
second semester of 1920-21. Table XIV shows that at the be- 
ginning of this semester the median achievement quotient of the 
experimental schools was two points higher than that of the control 
schools. We have seen that both the intelligence and the achieve- 
ment scores made at the end of the semester showed a greater in- 
crease in the case of the experimental schools than in that of the 
other group, but that the increase in intelligence on the part of 
the experimental schools was slightly greater than that in achieve- 
ment. Moreover, both groups showed greater increases in achieve- 
ment than .in intelligence. Therefore we expect to find, as we do, 
that the median achievement quotients of both groups of schools 
increased during this semester, and that the increase in the case 
of the control schools was slightly greater. This difference was 
two points. Thus at the end of the semester the two medians 
were the same. The general import of this evidence is that in so 
far as achievement was concerned there was a slight relative in- 
crease in the efficiency of the control schools. 

The correlation of intelligence and achievement at the 
beginning and end of the second semester of 1920-21. Al- 
though the achievement quotient measures the relation of intelli- 
gence and achievement in one way, this relation may also be meas- 
ured by means of the coefficient of correlation. The following table 
shows the coefficients that were found at the beginning and end of 
the semester by correlating the mental and achievement ages for 
all grades combined: 

Experimental Control 

Beginning End Loss Beginning End Loss 

.68±.01 .56=t.01 .12 .60±.01 .51 ±.01 .09 

It is evident that in both groups there was a decrease in the 

[44] 



correlation of achievement with intelligence as measured by the 
tests used. This decrease was slightly greater in the case of the 
experimental schools, but the difference was not great enough to 
be significant. It may be that this decrease was due to a lessening 
of the degree to which instruction was adapted to the capacities 
of the pupils. It is likely, however, that much, if not all, of the 
decrease was caused by the fact that the mental ages calculated at the 
beginning of the semester were based upon the average scores 
made on two intelligence tests and hence were more reliable than 
those obtained at the end of the semester, which were based upon 
only one test score. This lower degree of reliability would natur- 
ally tend to reduce the correlation between the mental and the 
achievement ages. 

The relation of the intelligence and achievement quo- 
tients at the beginning and end of the second semester of 1920- 
21. The median achievement quotients of the groups of different 
levels of intelligence as determined by the intelligence quotients 
were computed for the end of the semester as they had been at 
its beginning. Table XV presents a comparison of those found at 
the two periods. The achievement quotients of the different groups 
at the end of the semester showed that in the experimental schools 
instruction was adapted about equally well to the pupils of different 



TABLE XV. MEDIAN ACHIEVEMENT QUOTIENTS OF THE PUPILS OF 

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE AT THE BEGINNING 

AND END OF THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1920-21 





Achievement Quotients 


Intelligence 
Quotient 


Experi 


mental 


Control 




Beginning 


End 


Beginning 


End 


150-59 


104 


117 


98 


103 


140- 


95 


122 


95 


113 


130- 


102 


113 


98 


107 


120- 


102 


113 


102 


109 


110- 


101 


112 


101 


109 


100- 


102 


113 


102 


113 


90- 


104 


111 


104 


113 


80- 


103 


113 


105 


114 


70- 


107 


115 


110 


117 


60- 


113 


116 


114 


120 


50- 


109 


128 


125 


120 


Ail 


105 


112 


104 


112 



[45] 



levels of intelligence, whereas in the control schools the previous 
well-marked tendency to adapt instruction more nearly to the 
capacities of the inferior pupils remained. As this tendency was 
present in both groups of schools at the beginning of the semester 
it is evident that there was a relative improvement in the degree 
to which the instruction in the experimental schools was adapted 
to pupils of one level of intelligence as well as to those of another. 
The coefficients of correlation of the intelHgence and achieve- 
ment quotients were also found and compared with those for the 
beginning of the semester. The following table presents this com- 
parison: 

Experimental Control 

Beginning End Gain Beginning End Gain 

— .16±.01 — .12±.01 .04 — .28=t.01 — .25±.01 .03 

This comparison shows that at the close of the semester the nega- 
tive correlations between the intelligence and achievement quotients 
were slightly smaller in the cases of both of the groups of schools. 
The difference In the gains was so small that it has no significance. 
This fact shows that the instruction given in the control schools 
was still somewhat less equally suited to pupils of all levels of 
intelligence than was that of the experimental schools. In the 
main this corroborates the evidence presented in the preceding 
paragraph. 

The gains in absolute achieyement during the first semes- 
ter of 1921-22, Table XVI, which contains data corresponding 
to the third and sixth columns of Tables XIII and XIV, shows 
that the increase In absolute achievement during this semester was 
seven months of achievement age in the experimental schools and 
four months In the control schools. As during this same semester 
the median mental age of the experimental schools did not Increase 
as much as did that of the control schools it seems fair to attribute 
the greater gain in achievement to an increase in the efficiency of 
the experimental schools. It was shown in the preceding chapter 
that during this same semester the "progress quotient" of this group 
of schools was greater than that of the control group, therefore 
this increase in efficiency in so far as achievement is concerned 
cannot be attributed to a slowing up of the progress of the pupils. 

[46] 



TABLE XVI. GRADE AND SECTION GAINS AND LOSSES IN ACHIEVE- 
MENT AGES AND QUOTIENTS OF THE TWO GROUPS OF 
SCHOOLS FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END 
OF THE FIRST SEMESTER OF 1921-22 







Achievement Ages 


Achievement Quotients 


Grade 


Section 








Experimental 


Control 


Experimental 


Control 


lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


16 

23 
8 


-2 


12 

7 

-19 


6 


IIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


-20 
-14 
-11 


-18 


-11 
-19 
-13 


-31 


IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


11 

7 
S 


6 


18 

-2 

10 


-21 


IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


8 
17 
16 


12 


-1 

-11 

-8 


-32 


IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


-IS 

-17 
-10 


-16 


-11 

-7 
-10 


-12 


IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


10 
IS 
21 


4 


-4 
-4 
-S 


-9 


IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


23 
22 
67 


-7 


1 

1 

12 


-18 


VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


20 

5 

-2 


17 


-11 
-10 
-25 


-1 


VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


12 

-6 

6 


18 


-7 

-15 

-9 


2 


VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


17 

19 

-49 


8 


-8 

-3 

-12 


-8 


VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


14 

2 
-29 


8 


-13 
-11 

-2 


-S 


VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


19 

18 

35 





-9 

-10 

2 


-12 


VIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


5 

10 
27 


3 


-13 

-3 
-3 


-S 


VIIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


-19 

-8 

-IS 


1 


-IS 
-13 
-18 


-9 


VIIIA 


Slow 
Average 


7 
12 


-3 


-7 
3 


-17 


All 


All 


7 


4 


-8 


-13 



[47] 



The achievement quotients at the beginning and end of the 
first semester of 1921-22. The median achievement quotients of 
both groups of schools were smaller at the end of this semester 
than they were at its beginning. In other words, the average in- 
crease in the scores made upon the intelligence tests was consid- 
erably greater than that in those upon the achievement tests. This 
would seem to point to the fact that the practice effect upon the 
intelligence tests was greater than that upon the others. As Table 
XVI shows, the decrease in the median achievement quotient of 
the experimental schools was eight points, whereas that In the 
control schools was thirteen points. Thus the loss of the experi- 
mental schools was five points less than that of the other group, 
or, in other words, their relative gain was that large. This sup- 
ports the conclusion reached above from the study of the mental 
and achievement ages, that the efficiency of the experimental schools 
during the semester was greater than that of the control schools. 

The correlation of achievement and intelligence at the 
beginning and end of the first semester of 1921-22. The fol- 
lowing table compares the coefficients of correlation found at the 
end of the semester with those at the beginning: 

Experimental Control 

Beginning End Loss Beginning End Loss 

.56 ±.01 .54=t.01 .02 .51 ±.01 .51 ±.01 .00 

Judging from these coefficients, it seems that there was practically 
no change In the relation of achievement to Intelligence during this 
semester. The slight decrease of .02 on the part of the experimental 
schools was too small to have any significance. 

The relation of the intelligence and achievement quo- 
tients at the beginning and the end of the first semester of 
1921-22. Table XVII shows the same facts for this semester as Ta- 
ble XV for the previous semester. At the end of this semester there 
was a rather definite decrease In the achievement quotient medians of 
the experimental schools from the duller to the brighter pupils. 
This tendency was even more marked in the control schools. 
Inasmuch as at the beginning of the semester this tendency was 
not noticeable in the experimental schools but was present in the 
control schools the figures for the end of the semester Indicate that 
relatively the condition which they measure became worse in the 

[48] 



TABLE XVII. MEDIAN ACHIEVEMENT QUOTIENTS OF THE PUPILS OF 

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE AT THE BEGINNING 

AND END OF THE FIRST SEMESTER OF 1921-22 





Achievement Quotients 


Intelligence 
Quotient 


Experimental 


Control 






Beginning 


End 


Beginning 


End 


150-59 


117 


98 


103 


85 




140- 


122 


96 


113 


88 




130- 


113 


102 


107 


95 




120- 


113 


100 


109 


99 




110- 


112 


102 


109 


104 




100- 


113 


106 


113 


105 




90- 


111 


106 


113 


105 




80- 


113 


110 


114 


107 




70- 


115 


111 


117 


113 




60- 


116 


114 


120 


119 




50- 


128 


125 


120 


132 




All 


112 105 


112 


104 





experimental schools. That is to say, during this semester there 
was a relative loss in the degree to which instruction was equally 
well adapted to pupils of all levels of intelligence in the experimental 
schools. The writer is unable to suggest any probable explanation 
of this fact. 

A comparison of the coefficients of correlation of the intelli- 
gence and achievement quotients at the end of the semester with 
those at the beginning supports the conclusion given above. These 
coefficients were as follows: 

Control 
Beginning End Loss 
— .25±.01 — .39±.01 .14 

This comparison shows that the correlation between the intelligence 
and achievement quotients became considerably greater, negatively, 
during the semester. The change was much larger in the experi- 
mental schools. This fact emphasizes the conclusions presented in 
the last two paragraphs to the effect that there was a relative 
decrease in the degree to which the experimental schools capitalized 
the capacities of their pupils into achievement. This decrease is 
even more definitely shown by these coefficients than by the data 
given previously. 

The gains in absolute achievement during the second 
semester of 1921-22. Table XVIII, which is similar to Table XVI, 



Experimental 
Beginning End Loss 
-.12±.01 — .36±.01 .24 



[49] 



TABLE XVIII. GRADE AND SECTION GAINS AND LOSSES IN ACHIEVE- 
MENT AGES AND QUOTIENTS OF THE TWO GROUPS OF 
SCHOOLS FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END 
OF THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1921-22 



Grade 


Section 


Achievement Ages | 


Achievement Quotients 


Experimental 


Control 


Experimental 


Control 


lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


35 
40 
47 


18 


25 
45 
16 


4 


IIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


3 

7 

-7 





7 

12 

5 


-4 


IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


11 
10 
6 


15 


7 

10 
25 


17 


IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


1 

7 
7 


16 


-3 

2 

10 


19 


IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


-16 
-15 

-2 


-4 


-6 
-9 
16 


13 


IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


6 

4 
15 


16 


1 
9 
3 


12 


IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


5 
13 
12 


19 


7 

9 

20 


11 


VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 



10 

7 


12 


8 
11 
11 


11 


VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


8 

12 
10 


3 


13 
10 
13 


4 


VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


20 
17 
16 


5 


23 
13 
17 


5 


VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


6 
5 
4 


3 


4 
8 
3 


7 


VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


34 

9 

-9 


-12 


17 

5 
10 


-1 


VI I A 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


-23 
2 
9 


6 


-5 
8 
9 


2 


VIIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


18 

-6 

-19 


25 


14 

1 

-1 


17 


VIIIA 


Slow 
Average 


6 
-11 


20 


-16 
1 


11 


All 


All 


7 


4 


7 


6 



[SO] 



shows that the increase in absolute achievement during the second 
semester of 1921-22 averaged seven months in the experimental 
schools and four months in the control schools. Thus again it 
appears that the experimental schools were more efficient as regards 
the achievement of their pupils. As their "progress quotient" was 
considerably greater during this semester the gain in absolute 
achievement can not be attributed to holding back the pupils. 

The achievement quotients at the beginning and end of the 
second semester of 1921-22. Table XVIII likewise presents the 
gains of the two groups of schools in achievement quotients. Ac- 
cording to these quotients the gain of the experimental schools 
was only one point greater than that of the control schools. 

The correlation of achievement and intelligence at the 
beginning and end of the second semester of 1921-22. The 
coefficients of correlation between absolute achievement and intelli- 
gence at the beginning and end of this semester were as follows : 

Experimental Control 

Beginning End Gain Beginning End Gain 

.54±.01 .75=fc.01 .21 .51±.01 .53±.01 .02 

Judging from these coefficients it seems that there was a very de- 
cided gain in the relation of achievement to intelligence on the part 
of the experimental schools, but practically no change in the control 
schools. 

The relation of the intelligence and achievement quo- 
tients at the beginning and end of the second semester of 1921- 

22. Table XIX, which is similar to Tables XIII and XVII, pre- 
sents the relation of the achievement and intelligence quotients for 
the second semester of 1921-22. Comparing the figures for the 
beginning and end of this semester there seems to have been no 
noticeable change in the situation. 

A comparison of the coefficients of correlation of the intelligence 
and achievement quotients is more favorable to the experimental 
schools. These coefficients were as follows: 



Experimental 


Control 




Beginning End Gain 


Beginning End 


Loss 


—.36 ±.01 — .34±.01 .02 


— .39±.01 — .52±.01 


.13 



The change in the coefficients of the control schools showed a de- 
crease in the adaptation of instruction to pupils of all levels of 

[51] 



TABLE XIX. MEDIAN ACHIEVEMENT QUOTIENTS OF THE PUPILS OF 

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE AT THE BEGINNING 

AND END OF THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1921-22 





Achievement Quotients 


Intelligence 
Quotient 


Experimental 


Control 




Beginning 


End 


Beginning 


End 


150-59 


98 


89 


85 


88 


140- 


96 


99 


88 


92 


130- 


102 


106 


95 


101 


120- 


100 


109 


99 


104 


110- 


102 


108 


104 


109 


100- 


106 


112 


105 


111 


90- 


106 


115 


105 


112 


80- 


110 


114 


107 


118 


70- 


111 


121 


113 


119 


60- 


114 


131 


119 


128 


50- 


125 


125 


132 


131 


All 


105 


113 


104 


109 



intelligence, but in the experimental schools such adaptation seems 
to have remained about the same. 

The achievements of the two groups of schools during the 
second semester of 1921-22 as measured by the Omnibus Test. 

In planning this experiment it was decided to make use of tests 
in reading and arithmetic because those are generally considered 
the two most important subjects of the elementary curriculum and 
further because it was believed that the results obtained would 
give a fairly reliable index of the achievements of the pupils in all 
subjects. In order to provide a partial check upon this latter 
assumption a test was devised by the writer and given to the pupils 
of grade VIB and above at the regular testing period in May, 1922. 
This test, which was called the Omnibus Test,^ contained questions 
in geography, history, grammar, elementary science and certain 
phases of arithmetic not covered by the standardized tests used. 
The scores made on this test were translated into achievement 
ages and quotients in the same way as for the other tests of 
achievement. 

Table XX presents the median ages and quotients for the 
various grades and sections of the two groups of schools. It may 
be seen from this table that the showing made upon this test by 



^See Appendix C. 



[52] 



TABLE XX. MEDIAN GRADE AND SECTION OMNIBUS ACHIEVEMENT 

AGES AND QUOTIENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE TWO GROUPS OF 

SCHOOLS AT THE END OF THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1921-22 







Ages 


Quotients 


Grs-dc 


Sppfinn 










OCV^LlUIl 


Experimental 


Control 


Experimental 


Control 


VIB 


Slow 


10-8 




97 






Average 


12-3 


10-10 


102 


88 




Fast 


10-8 




90 




VIA 


Slow 


10-8 




85 






Average 


11-1 


15-2 


89 


120 




Fast 


12-2 




85 




VIIB 


Slow 


11-10 




95 






Average 


12-0 


14-10 


92 


109 




Fast 


15-3 




100 




VIIA 


Slow 


11-1 




86 






Average 


14-9 


14-4 


102 


107 




Fast 


16-8 




114 




VIIIB 


Slow 


12-11 




98 






Average 


13-5 


15-7 


87 


108 




Fast 


15-2 




90 




VIIIA 


Slow 


11-7 




88 






Average 


14-11 


17-3 


96 


HI 




All 


12-8 


14-11 


94 


107 



the control schools was very much better than that made by the 
experimental schools. The average difference was over two years 
of achievement age and thirteen points of achievement quotient. 
Inasmuch as the pupils were not given a similar test at any pre- 
vious time the relative gain can not be computed. The difference 
between the two groups is so great, however, that it Is evidently 
significant. A very probable conclusion is that in the experimental 
schools there was a tendency to emphasize the instruction In read- 
ing and arithmetic to the neglect of that In the other subjects. This 
tendency was probably not due to the fact that the teachers and 
pupils were consciously striving to prepare to make better scores upon 
the tests but that merely through the use of the tests in reading 
and arithmetic attention was called to pupils' weaknesses In these 
subjects and therefore unusual care was taken to correct these 
weaknesses. 

Individual opinion as to the relative importance of arithmetic 



[S3] 



and reading as compared with the elementary school subjects cov- 
ered by the Omnibus Test will largely determine one's belief as 
to whether or not the experimental schools made a relative gain in 
achievement during the course of the experiment. Inasmuch as 
there was an average relative gain of only about one point per semes- 
ter in the achievement quotient on the part of the experimental 
schools it is the opinion of the writer that there was not any 
greater efficiency in the achievement of this group of schools. On 
the other hand, he does not believe it should be asserted that in 
so far as achievement was concerned there was a decidedly smaller 
degree of efficiency. 

Summary. The data presented in this chapter considering 
them from the standpoint of the experimental schools relative to 
the control schools may be briefly summarized as follows: 

1. At the beginning of the experiment the median achievement 
age as measured by the tests used was four months lower. 
During the experiment slightly greater efficiency was shown, 
averaging about one month per semester, according to the 
reading and arithmetic test results. According to the results 
on the Omnibus Test, however, the median achievement age 
was twenty-seven months lower at the conclusion of the 
experiment. 

2. The median achievement quotient derived from the arith- 
metic and reading tests was two points greater both at the 
beginning and end of the experiment. Allowing for the 
effect of the new entrants and eliminees, however, there 
was a relative gain of about one point per semester. The 
Omnibus Test achievement quotient was thirteen points 
lower. 

3. The correlation of intelligence and achievement was .08 
greater at the beginning and .25 greater at the close of the 
experiment. 

4. At the beginning of the experiment instruction was some- 
what better adapted to the inferior than to the superior 
pupils in both groups of schools. On the whole there was 
little change in this situation. 

Considering these items together it seems that in so far as 

[54] 



achievement was concerned the efficiency of the experimental 
schools was no greater than that of the control schools. The slightly 
greater efficiency in reading and arithmetic was at least balanced 
by the results of the Omnibus Test. If we assume that the meas- 
urement of achievement shows no advantage for either group of 
schools it may be said that the experimental plan of organization 
was more efficient than the traditional plan because of the fact that 
the progress of the pupils was considerably greater in the experi- 
mental than in the control schools. If, on the other hand, it is 
considered that the Omnibus Test showed a distinctly greater de- 
gree of efficiency as regards the total achievement for the control 
schools, this must be balanced against the greater progress made 
in the other group and a less definite conclusion reached. 



[55] 



CHAPTER V 

A STUDY OF THE PUPttS WHO REMAINED IN SCHOOL 
THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE EXPERIMENT 

Although there was no reason to suspect that a study of the 
records of the pupils who participated in this experiment through- 
out the three semesters that it continued would yield results and 
conclusions materially different from those presented in Chapters 
III and IV, yet it was thought desirable to make such a study. 
Therefore this chapter will present certain data concerning the 
pupils who were in the schools in February, 1921, and remained 
therein until the close of the experiment. These pupils did not 
compose as large a group as might be expected because the pupil 
population of both groups of schools was very unstable. Slightly 
less than 60 percent of the pupils tested at the beginning of the 
experiment were still in the schools at its conclusion. In making 
a study of these pupils the tabulations were not made by separate 
semesters but all three semesters were taken together. 

The placement of the pupils and their progress through- 
out the grades. Tables XXI and XXII show the percents of 
pupils in the two groups of schools gaining or losing the given 
number of semesters during the three semesters that the experi- 
ment continued. From these tables it may be seen that only 34 
percent of the pupils of the experimental schools made just three 
semesters of progress, whereas 62 percent of those of the control 
schools did so. The percents making more than this amount of 
progress were 26 and 7, respectively, and those making less, 40 
and 32. The average amount of progress made was 2.79 semesters 
in the experimental schools but only 2.67 semesters in the control 
schools. Dividing these figures by three to reduce them to a semes- 
ter basis and then by the median I, Q.'s gives "progress quotients" 
of 93 and 89, respectively. Therefore it appears that in so far as 
progress was concerned the experimental plan of organization was 
somewhat more efficient for those pupils remaining in school 
throughout the experiment than was the traditional plan. The 

[56] 



TABLE XXI. PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL 

SCHOOLS PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE EXPERIMENT THAT 

GAINED OR LOST THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMESTERS 



Feb., 1921 1 






Semesters Gained or Lost 




Grade 


Section 


-S 


-1 





+1 


+2 


+2'A 


+3 


+3y2 


+4 


+4K 


+5 


+S>4 


+6 


+7 


+10 


+11 


IB 


Slow 
Average 








22 
11 


52 
28 


~1~ 

1 


20 
33 




2 
25 






2 










lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 




1 


3 


9 
4 
4 


38 
IS 


1 


38 
44 
22 


8 
14 
16 


2 

17 
27 


27 


3 
2 


2 




1 


1 




IIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








23 
6 


51 

33 

9 


2 
9 
S 


IS 
39 
36 


8 
9 


2 

3 

23 


27 














IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 

I 


8 
2 


59 
12 
6 




25 
52 
13 


4 
11 
29 


1 
9 
19 


1 

12 
32 














IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 


8 
6 
3 


59 

27 

6 


6 


19 

47 
34 


12 
8 
9 


2 
17 


17 


1 
4 
6 


3 


4 






2 


IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 


17 

7 
2 


47 

20 

3 




23 
39 
32 


7 
16 
13 


2 

10 
22 


3 

4 

22 


3 
2 


5 










IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








7 


46 
19 
2 




31 

36 

1 


7 
8 

1 


7 

25 

3 


6 
2 


1 




6 

1 








IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






1 


8 

2 


44 
16 




42 
41 


4 

2 


20 


11 


5 


2 










VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


I 






5 


54 
14 
S 




26 
39 
11 


5 
11 


5 

7 

16 


2 

27 
67 


2 












VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






2 


10 


54 

22 




28 
44 
20 


1 
13 


6 
11 
60 


8 
13 


7 












VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








13 

3 


20 
14 




55 
57 
13 


3 
3 


S 
12 

7 


S 

12 
77 


2 












VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 






2 


9 


61 
20 
10 




20 
46 
10 


7 
18 


16 
80 
















VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








7 


60 
16 


2 


33 
83 




















VIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 








8 


100 
92 
100 
























VIIIB 


Slow 
Average 








100 


























VIIIA 


Slow 
Average 


































All 


All 


.04 


.04 


.4 


7 


32 


1 


34 


7 


10 


7 


1 


.4 


.2 


.04 


.04 .04 



[57] 



TABLE XXII. PERCENTS OF THE PUPILS OF THE CONTROL SCHOOLS 
PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE EXPERIMENT THAT GAINED OR LOST 
THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMESTERS 



February 


















1921 


-1 





+ 1 


+2 


+3 


+4 


+5 


+6 


Grade 


















IB 




1 


16 


51 


30 


3 






lA 




1 


7 


24 


55 


13 






IIB 






7 


37 


56 


1 






IIA 




1 


4 


31 


60 


3 






IIIB 




1 


6 


25 


64 


2 




3 


IIIA 




4 


5 


26 


58 


7 






IVB 






3 


16 


76 


3 


2 




IVA 






1 


23 


73 


2 






VB 






1 


17 


78 


2 




1 


VA 






3 


17 


62 


17 


1 




VIB 








21 


69 


10 






VIA 






2 


22 


64 


12 






VIIB 






5 


20 


75 








VIIA 


7 




7 


87 










VIIIB 


















All 


.1 


1 


5 


26 


62 


6 


.2 


.3 



difference of four points in the "progress quotients," especially when 
it is remembered that this is an average difference for three semes- 
ters, is large enough to justify the above statement. 

The achievements of the pupils. Table XXIII presents the 
median achievement ages and' quotients for the two groups of schools 
at the beginning and end of the experiment. From these data it 
may be seen that the gain on the part of the pupils of the experi- 
mental schools was three months of achievement age greater than 
that for the other group of schools and that the gain in achievement 
quotient was one point greater. These figures show that for the 
pupils who remained throughout the course of the experiment the 
experimental schools were slightly more efficient in so far as achieve- 
ment was concerned. 

Summary. The evidence afforded by the study of the pupils 
who remained in school during the course of the experiment shows 
that for these pupils the experimental plan of procedure resulted 
in appreciably greater progress according to the ability of the 
children and in slightly greater achievement. The difference in the 
"progress quotients" was four points and that in the achievement 
quotients, one point. Thus the general conclusion to be drawn 

[58] 



TABLE XXIII. MEDIAN ACHIEVEMENT AGES AND QUOTIENTS OF 
PUPILS WHO WERE PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE EXPERIMENT 




IN FEBRUARY, 1921 AND MAY 


, 1922 




1921 1 


Achievement Age 


Achievement Quotient 




Section 


Experimental 


Control 


Experimental 


Control 


Grade 


1921 


1922 


1921 


1922 


1921 


1922 


1921 


1922 


lA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


6-5 

5-10 

5-6 


7-7 
9-7 
11-^ 


6-6 


9-2 


101 
88 
70 


113 
132 
125 


91 


108 


JIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


6-6 
6-7 
8-0 


6-5 
8-4 
9-5 


7-7 


7-6 


100 
90 
103 


100 
106 
108 


101 


93 


IIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


6-7 
7-6 
8-1 


8-11 

9-8 

9-6 


8-1 


9-6 


90 
93 
91 


112 
111 
102 


93 


105 


IIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


8-2 

8-10 

8-10 


9-5 

10-0 

8-11 


9-1 


10-8 


109 
106 
98 


118 
107 
109 


105 


104 


IIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


8-11 
10-1 
9-10 


8-8 
9-5 
10-6 


9-8 


10-0 


lis 

113 

107 


105 
99 
92 


lis 


98 


IVB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


8-11 
9-11 
10-6 


9-4 
10-4 
10-2 


9-1 


10-11 


112 
106 
105 


103 
110 
100 


108 


115 


IVA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


9-7 
10-11 
10-6 


10-7 

11-10 

12-10 


10-3 


12-3 


107 
111 
100 


111 
117 
111 


102 


124 


VB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


9-7 
11-0 
10-5 


11-8 
12-8 
12-10 


10-7 


11-11 


107 

110 

98 


116 
115 
114 


104 


114 


VA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


10-2 
11-8 
11-11 


12-0 
13-8 
16-10 


11-4 


12-1 


106 
108 
103 


117 
118 
137 


107 


111 


VIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


10-1 

11-11 

13-10 


12-10 

14-4 

16-4 


12-1 


14-1 


104 
106 
112 


124 
118 
116 


107 


120 


VIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


11-7 
12-6 
15-0 


13-2 
14-0 
14-^ 


12-1 


14-5 


112 
104 
112 


111 
114 
110 


107 


112 


VIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


12-5 
12-4 
14-6 


15-2 
13-7 
15-10 


13-11 


14-4 


108 
103 
103 


123 
117 
118 


105 


108 


VIIA 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


12-6 
13-7 
15-6 


13-7 
16-1 
18-2 


14-7 


14-9 


110 
103 
102 


110 
114 
124 


101 


113 


VIIIB 


Slow 

Average 

Fast 


ii^ 


16-5 
17-0 
19-8 


16-5 


16-7 


'ioo 


125 
114 

120 


118 


120 


VIIIA 


Slow 
Average 




14-0 
17-10 




17-4 




95 
113 




112 


All 


All 


9-10 


11-6 


10-2 


11-7 


106 


112 


104 


109 



from this study is the same as that drawn from the study of all 
the pupils, that the experimental plan of organization was some- 
what more efficient than was the traditional plan. 



[59] 



CHAPTER VI 

A SPECIAL STUDY OF THE BRIGHTER AND 
DULLER PUPILS 

It is evident that such an experiment as the one described in 
this bulletin might not have the same effect upon the efficiency of 
the instruction of the brighter, the average and the duller pupils. 
In view of this fact a special study was made of the brighter and 
another of the duller pupils in order to discover the effect of the 
experimental plan of organization upon the efficiency of the instruc- 
tion of these two groups. For the purpose of the two studies the 
records of those pupils whose I. Q.'s as found at the first testing 
period were 115 or higher and of those whose I. Q.'s were less 
than 80 were used. The former group included about one-sixth of 
the total number of pupils and the latter group about one-fifth. 
All records not complete for the duration of the experiment were 
rejected so that the number of pupils actually included in these 
studies was reduced to 199 brighter pupils and 514 duller pupils 
from the experimental schools and 396 brighter and 291 duller 
pupils from the control schools. 

The placement of the brighter pupils and their progress 
through the grades. Of the 199 pupils of the experimental schools 
2 percent were placed in the slow sections, 23 percent in the average 
sections and 75 percent in the fast sections at the beginning of the 
experiment. When it closed the respective percents were 1, 51 and 
49. The marked reduction of the number in the fast sections was 
due to the fact that by the close of the experiment these pupils 
had gained one semester or more and in many cases were not quite 
bright enough to attempt to make further gain, at least immediately. 

Table XXIV shows that the number of semesters gained by 
the brighter pupils of the experimental schools varied from two to 
six, and by those of the control schools from one to four. The 
percents of the brighter pupils of the experimental schools making 
less than regular, regular and more than regular progress, were 9, 
23, and 68, respectively. In the control schools the corresponding 

[60] 



TABLE XXIV. PERCENTS OF THE BRIGHTER AND OF THE DULLER 

PUPILS OF THE TWO GROUPS OF SCHOOLS GAINING OR 

LOSING THE GIVEN NUMBER OF SEMESTERS 

DURING THE EXPERIMENT. 





-S 





1 


2 


I'A 


3 


il4 


4 


4>i 


5 


sy. 


6 


7 


10 


11 


Average 
Progress 


"Progress 
Quotient" 


Brighter Pupils 




































Experimental 




































Slow 












25 


25 


SO 
















3.63 


97 


Average 








13 




42 


22 


11 


7 


2 


2 










3.29 


92 


Fast 








i 


2 


17 


9 


19 


40 


3 


3 


2 








3.97 


106 


All 








7 


2 


23 


13 


18 


32 


3 


2 


2 








3.80 


102 


Control 






2 


IS 




72 




11 
















2.92 


77 


Duller Pupils 




































Experimental 




































Slow 


.2 


2 


14 


57 


.2 


20 


4 


3 


.5 


.2 












2.14 


99 


Average 






13 


27 


2 


43 


3 


8 


13 






1* 


1* 


1* 


1* 


2.91 


133 


Fast 






13 


25 






13 


38 


1 














3.13 


149 


All 


.2 


1 


14 


54 


.4 


23 


4 


4 




.2 




.2* 


.2* 


.2* 


.2* 


2.26 


105 


Control 




1 


8 


36 




50 




S 




.3 




1* 








2.56 


119 



*These large amounts of progress were made by foreign-born pupils who, at the beginning of the ex- 
periment, were so handicapped by their inability to use the English language that they made low test 
scores and did poor school work. Many of these pupils were able to skip the work of several semesters as 
soon as the language difficulty was overcome. 

figures were 17, 72 and 11. Table XXIV also shows that the aver- 
age progress of the brighter pupils of the experimental schools was 
.88 of a semester greater than that of the pupils of the control 
schools and that their "progress quotient" was twenty-five points 
greater. These differences show that the experimental schools were 
much more effective in so far as the rate of progress of the brighter 
pupils was concerned. 

The achievements of the brighter pupils. The table just 
below gives the median achievement ages and quotients of the 
brighter pupils of both groups of schools In February, 1921, and 
May, 1922. 



Experimental 






Control 




1921 1922 


Gain 


1921 


1922 


Gain 


11-4 12-11 


19 


11-2 


12-7 


17 


103 112 


9 


98 


104 


6 



Achievement Age 
Achievement Quotient 

From these data it is evident that the more rapid progress of the 

pupils of the experimental schools did not result in a lessening of 

their relative achievement but was accompanied by a small gain. 

This gain in relative achievement amounted to two months in terms 

of achievement age or three points in terms of achievement quotient. 

Thus considering progress and achievement together, it may be said 

that for the brighter pupils the experimental plan of organization 

resulted in a marked increase of efficiency. 

[61] 



The placement of the duller pupils and their progress 
through the grades. Of the 514 duller pupils from the experi- 
mental schools, 86 percent were placed in the slow sections, 12 
percent in the average and 2 percent in the fast sections at the be- 
ginning of the experiment. At the close of the experiment the re- 
spective percents were 85, 13 and 2. Thus it is apparent that there 
was practically no change in the number of pupils in each of the 
three sectional groups. 

Table XXIV shows that the number of the duller pupils making 
more than normal progress was not very large in either group of 
schools. Slightly over one-half of the duller pupils of the experi- 
mental schools made regular progress in the slow sections, which 
resulted in their covering two semesters' work during the three 
semesters of the experiment. Slightly less than one-fourth of them 
made three semesters' progress by maintaining membership in the 
average sections. Ten percent managed to make more than normal 
progress, while 15 percent made less than two semesters. In 
the control schools 50 percent made normal progress, 45 percent 
less and 6 percent more. The average progress was three-tenths of 
a semester greater for the pupils of the control schools and the 
"progress quotient" fourteen points greater. 

Analyzing the data presented above it is apparent that more 
of the duller pupils were failed in the control schools than in the 
experimental schools. Since, however, pupils were able to advance 
in the slow sections without failure while covering less than the 
normal amount of work the average progress was less in the 
experimental schools. As was true in the case of the brighter 
pupils more of the pupils from the experimental schools made 
extra progress. 

The achievements of the duller pupils. The table just be- 
low gives the median achievement ages and quotients of the duller 
pupils of both groups of schools In February, 1921, and May, 1922. 





Experimental 




Control 






1921 1922 Gain 


1921 


1922 


Gain 


Achievement Age 


8-10 10-6 20 


9-3 


10-9 


18 


Achievement Quotient 


112 114 2 


115 


114 


-1 



These data show that the gain made by the duller pupils of the 
experimental schools was two months of achievement age greater 

[62] 



than that made by those of the control schools and that their gain 
in achievement quotient was three points greater. Therefore it can 
be said that in so far as achievement was concerned the experi- 
mental plan of procedure was slightly more efficient for the duller 
pupils than the traditional plan used in the control schools. 

Summary. A special study of the brighter and duller pupils 
who were in school throughout the experiment yields the following 
results and conclusions: 

1. The brighter pupils of the experimental schools had a 
"progress quotient" twenty-five points greater than did those 
of the control schools. 

2. The relative gain of the brighter pupils of the experimental 
schools in median achievement quotient was three points. 

3. The "progress quotient" of the duller pupils of the experi- 
mental schools was fourteen points less than that of the duller 
pupils of the control schools. 

4. The duller pupils of the experimental schools made a rela- 
tive gain of three points in their median achievement quo- 
tient. 

A fair statement of the conclusions to be drawn would seem to be 
that the experimental plan of organization was considerably more 
efficient than the traditional plan in so far as it concerned the 
brighter pupils, but that in the case of the duller pupils it was 
somewhat less efficient. 



[63] 



CHAPTER Vn 

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 

A brief statement of the results of this experiment. The 

results actually obtained in this experiment may be listed as follows : 

I. At the beginning of the experiment the placement of the 
pupils involved a relative loss in placement of .05 semester 
on the part of the experimental schools. This and the other 
amounts of progress are computed relative to the capacity 
of the pupils. 

n. The main study, which included all the pupils of the two 
groups of schools, showed that: 

1. The average progress was .06 semester larger in the 
experimental schools than in the control schools. 

2. There was a relative gain for the experimental schools of 

about one point per semester in the achievement quo- 
tient as measured by the arithmetic and reading tests. 

3. The achievement quotient derived from the Omnibus Test 

was thirteen points less for the experimental schools. 

III. A special study of the pupils who remained in school 
throughout the experiment gave the following results: 

1. The average progress for the experimental schools was 

.04 semester greater than that for the other group. 

2. There was a relative gain for the experimental schools 

of one point in the achievement quotient. 

IV. A special study of the brighter pupils revealed the follow- 
ing facts: 

1. Those of the experimental schools progressed at a rate 

.25 semester greater than did those of the control schools. 

2. The relative gain in the achievement quotient on the part 

of the pupils of the experimental schools was three 
points. 

V. A special study of the duller pupils gave the following re- 
sults : 

[64] 



1. Those of the experimental schools made, on the average, 

.14 semester less progress per semester than did those of 
the other group of schools. 

2. There was a relative gain of three points in the median 

achievement quotient for the experimental schools. 

It seems fair to summarize these results by saying that for 
pupils of all degrees of intelligence combined the experimental plan 
of organization was more efficient as regards progress and about 
the same as regards achievement, as compared with the traditional 
plan. The difference in progress was considerably more than enough 
to balance the relative loss caused by the placement of the pupils 
at the beginning of the experiment. 

Conclusions to be drawn from these results and their ap- 
plication to school systems in general. The comparisons that 
were made between the schools taking part In this experiment and 
certain other city school systems seem to show that the results 
obtained In this experiment and the conclusions based thereon are 
fairly applicable to school systems In general. Assuming that this 
conclusion is warranted, the question remains as to whether or not 
the classification of pupils along lines similar to those followed in 
this experiment should be recommended to school administrators 
as a practical method of procedure. In considering this question 
it should be recognized that the public school superintendent or 
supervisor can ordinarily exercise a somewhat higher degree of 
supervision over the schools under his control than could the 
writer over the schools participating In this experiment. Therefore, 
it should be possible to secure somewhat more favorable conditions 
for carrying out the experimental plan of organization than were 
possible in this experiment. 

In the second place, the question arises as to how large a gain in 
output, that is to say In progress and achievement, Is required to 
justify a certain amount of additional Investment. In this experi- 
ment the cost in both money and time was considerably larger per 
pupil than would be necessary in the usual public school situation. 
Ordinarily pupils would not need to be tested so often nor would 
it be necessary to use tests of achievement. Furthermore, there 
were many tabulations and computations made In this project that 
would not be necessary in the ordinary school situation. The cost 

[65] 



of group intelligence tests is only a few cents per pupil, in some 
cases being as low as one and one-half cents and in few more than 
ten cents. If the teachers scored the papers there would be no 
extra expense involved therein. Thus the cost of the tests and a 
rather small amount of clerk hire would be all the unusual outlay 
required to make use of group intelligence tests for purposes of 
placing pupils. Certain plans of doing this have involved a de- 
crease in the average number of pupils per teacher or per room or 
some other element of additional investment. In this experiment 
there was no such expenditure, nor need there be in the usual 
situation. The desirability of reducing class size, whether in this 
or some other type of organization, is a separate problem. There- 
fore the total cost of the type of organization used in the experi- 
mental schools amounts to only a fraction of one percent of the 
total expenditure per pupil. As the gain in progress on the part of 
the experimental schools amounted to several percent of the total 
progress and as there was no loss in achievement, and, furthermore, 
as it is probable that under ordinary conditions the gain would be 
greater than it was in this project it would seem that an additional 
investment of a fraction of one percent would be entirely justifiable. 

There remains, however, another point that must be consid- 
ered in this connection. In Chapter I, output was defined as being 
composed of progress and achievement. There are undoubtedly 
other less tangible factors that constitute a part, and a rather 
important part, of the output of a school system. Such outcomes 
as industry, good citizenship, intellectual honesty, social develop- 
ment, etc., were either not measured in this experiment or measured 
so indirectly that no assumptions can be made concerning their 
presence and amount. This fact does not invalidate the conclu- 
sions reached, but merely signifies that these other outcomes of 
instruction must be considered in their interpretation. The fact 
that we cannot measure the total output should not bar us from 
measuring that which can be measured nor from proceeding ac- 
cording to what our measurements reveal until more complete 
measurements are possible. 

It must also be remembered, as was stated in Chapter I, that 
there were really two problems involved in this experiment. It is pos- 
sible that a portion or all of the results obtained in this experiment 

[66] 



might be secured In a somewhat similar experiment in which the 
pupils were classified according to teachers' judgments. Especially 
might this occur if the teachers participating were well-trained and 
experienced, and perhaps had given special study to the problem 
of classifying pupils according to their capacities. There were sev- 
eral reasons why the pupils in the control schools were not so 
classified, the chief one being that it was impracticable in the given 
situation. It may be suggested that since fast, average and slow 
sections were not formed in the control schools, they should not 
have been formed in the experimental schools. As was stated in 
Chapter I, the use of intelligence tests for the purpose of placing 
pupils implies that the pupils be placed according to their capaci- 
ties 'and that it would not have been possible to arrange an experi- 
ment that would show the value of intelligence tests for the purpose 
mentioned unless such sections had been formed. Also the writer 
does not believe that the classification of the pupils of the experi- 
mental schools according to the teachers' judgments would have 
yielded as favorable results as did their classification according to 
the principles enumerated in Chapter I. This belief is based upon 
a study of the accounts of various experiments and of the 
teachers' estimates of capacity and the average school marks actually 
given in this experiment. These disagreed with the results of the 
intelligence tests in many cases and in most of these the latter ap- 
peared to furnish a more reliable means of predicting future 
progress and achievement than did the former. 

In considering the conclusions reached from this study it should 
be borne in mind that the total time included was only three 
semesters. It is probable that if the experiment had continued 
for a longer time, say for eight or ten years, certain effects would 
have been noted that did not appear during the three semesters or 
effects that were present might have appeared in much more pro- 
nounced fashion. In general it seemed that as the experiment 
progressed from semester to semester the plan of organization 
being tried out gave better results. If the teachers had had several 
years' experience with such a plan the results might have been 
still more favorable. The plan was new to the teachers and hence 
they probably could not do their best work at first. On the other 
hand, it is possible that a division of the pupils into three groups 

[67] 



might tend to make the teachers feel less responsible for the 
achievements of the pupils, especially those of the duller ones. 
They might more or less unconsciously come to feel that the pupils 
placed in the slow sections could not be expected to do a very high 
quality of work and that therefore they were not worth much at- 
tention and effort. Such a result would, of course, be decidedly 
undesirable. 

Considering the facts and possibilities mentioned above it is 
the opinion of the writer that the use of intelligence tests as the 
chief basis of classifying pupils increases the output of the school 
sufficiently to justify the additional expense involved. It is not, 
however, a panacea for all inefficient schools nor a method of organ- 
ization that should be rushed into by every school administrator 
before he has made a careful study of its installation and operation. 



[68] 



APPENDIX A 

A COMPARISON OF THE PUPILS ENTERING AND LEAV- 

ING SCHOOL DURING THE EXPERIMENT WITH THE 

TOTAL NUMBER OF PUPILS 

Necessity for this comparison. Inasmuch as the shifting of 
membership within both groups of schools was so large, it seemed 
wise to take definite account of its effect upon the results and con- 
clusions reached. In Chapters III and IV, where these results and 
conclusions are given, this effect has been considered. It was more 
or less probable that the number or mental capacities of the pupils 
eliminated from the experimental schools might be considerably 
influenced by the conditions of the experiment. For example, the 
recognition of the ability of the brighter pupils might tend to hold 
a larger percent of them in school and the placing of the duller pupils 
in slow sections might cause more of them to leave school than 
would normally be the case. This would, of course, materially 
raise the general mental level of the pupil material. On the other 
hand, it is possible that by placing many duller pupils, who would 
otherwise be failed, in the slow sections more of them would be 
held in school and that by allowing the brighter pupils to progress 
more rapidly they would be encouraged to leave school sooner 
than would otherwise be the case. Such results as these would 
lower the general mental level. Or perhaps some other combina- 
tion of the four possible results just mentioned took place, so that 
more pupils of all degrees of ability were held in school, or more 
eliminated. Or again, other effects than those mentioned might 
have resulted. In regard to the new entrants, a priori reasoning 
would lead to the conclusion that they would have no effect upon 
the outcome of the experiment, since its operation would not in 
any way cause them to enter or not to enter school. However, it 
was thought best to make a study of them as well as one of the 
eliminees. 

The effect of the pupils entering and leaving school dur- 
ing the experiment upon the total school population. It was 
found that during each of the three semesters of the experiment 

[69] 



the percent of pupils eliminated from the experimental schools 
was much greater than that from the control schools, the averages 
being about 12 and 7 percent, respectively. It might seem, there- 
fore, that the experimental plan of organization resulted in increas- 
ing the amount of elimination. The writer does not believe, how- 
ever, that this was the case. If it had been, the elimination rate 
for the pupils in the different sectional groups probably would have 
varied considerably. A study of this phase of the question shows 
that for each of the semesters the percents of all the pupils belong- 
ing to the fast, average and slow sections that were eliminated 
were practically the same. To word it differently, the percent of 
all pupils eliminated that had been in the fast sections was almost 
exactly the same as the percent of all pupils placed therein. A 
similar condition held for the other sections. Furthermore, the 
principals of the experimental schools stated that the elimination 
was no greater than was usual. 

Table XXV shows the effects of the entrance and the elimina- 
tion of pupils upon the total school population. It is to be read as fol- 
lows, taking the first double column of the row of entries following 
"Med. Chron. Age" as an example: the elimination of pupils 
during the second semester of 1920-21 caused a decrease of one- 
tenth of a year more in the median chronological age of the pupils 
of the experimental schools than in that of the control schools. 
The entrance of new pupils during this time had no effect. 



TABLE XXV. THE EFFECTS OF THE ENTRANCE AND ELIMINATION 
OF PUPILS UPON THE TOTAL PUPIL POPULATION 





Second 
Semester 
of 1920-21 


Summer 
of 1921 


First 

Semester 

of 1921-22 


Second 
Semester 
of 1921-22 




Elim. 


NewE. 


Elim. 


NewE. 


Elim. 


NewE. 


Elim. 


NewE. 


Med. Chron. Age 

Percent Accelerated 

Percent Retarded 

Aver. Retardation 

Aver. Progress 


-.1 
-1. 
+ 1. 

-.03 


+.03 
-.01 
-1. 


-.2 
-1. 
+ 1. 

-.04 

-.1 

-2. 


+ 1. 
-.01 

-1. 

-1. 


-.1 
-.02 


-.1 

+.02 
-.01 

-.2 
-1. 
-1. 


-.2 
-1. 
+ 1. 

-.04 

-.1 

+ 1. 




Prog. Quotient 




Median M. A 




Median I. Q 




Median A. A 




Median A. Q 





[70] 



In^making use of the data in this table it must be borne in 
mind that all of the eliminated pupils were not included in the 
tabulations from which the data were derived. In a rather large 
number of cases the individual record cards of pupils who had left 
school were not returned to the writer along with the cards of those 
still in school. Practically all of these cases were in the control 
schools. In other cases the pupils were absent at the time of test- 
ing but did not actually withdraw from school until later, not re- 
turning to be tested in the meantime, so that another possible 
source of discrepancy was introduced. In view of these facts it 
was not certain that the effects listed in the table were all of the 
effects or were the true effects produced upon the pupil material 
by the pupils who left during the experiment. In the case of the 
new entrants there were no such opportunities for records to be lost 
unless the pupils concerned not only entered but left during the 
same semester, in which case they would not have been included 
in the tabulation. 

The effect of the differences between the new entrants and 
eliminees and the total pupil population in so far as they relate 
to progress were considered in Chapter III. On the whole these 
effects were comparatively small. Those having to do with achieve- 
ment were not used in Chapter IV or elsewhere. The reason for 
this was that all the tabulations in that chapter were made for the 
pupils who were present throughout the semester and hence did 
not need to be included for the pupils entering or leaving during 
the given semester. They are merely presented here as a matter 
of interest. 



[71] 



APPENDIX B 

THE RELIABIUTY AND CORRELATION OF THE TESTS 
USED IN THIS EXPERIMENT 

In considering the results of such an experiment as the one 
described in the body of this report the question of the rehabiUty 
of the tests used at once arises. The writer will not go into the 
matter in a detailed way but will merely present such coefficients 
of correlation and other measures of the reliability of the tests as 
were obtained and comment briefly thereon. No attempt was 
made to compute all the possible correlations between the tests 
used. 

Constant and variable errors. Before proceeding to give the 
data referred to in the preceding paragraph, a brief discussion of 
the errors present in test scores seems appropriate. These errors 
may be classified as constant and variable. 

Constant errors are those which are the same or approximately 
so for the group being tested. If, for example, the person giving 
the test allows less time than the directions call for a constant 
error is introduced, the effect of which is to lower the scores of all 
pupils taking the test. On the other hand, if too much time is 
allowed the scores are too large. Probably the most frequent 
constant errors are those due to what is often called "practice 
effect." If a duplicate form of a test is given the scores made 
thereon are ordinarily somewhat higher than those made at the 
first trial. Such constant errors were, of course, present in this 
experiment but as they were equally present for the two groups of 
schools it was not necessary to make any allowance for them. 

Variable errors are those which differ for the different indi- 
viduals taking the test. They are due to a number of causes. On 
any given day certain pupils are below par physically or mentally 
and therefore are likely to make a lower score than they would 
ordinarily. Such happenings as the breaking of a pencil point, the 
dropping of a test paper upon the floor or some occurrence dis- 
tracting an Individual's attention cause variable errors. All of these 

[72] 



mentioned so far result In lower scores. On the other hand, it may 
be that the particular form of a test used contains items which 
happen to be well known by a few members of the group taking 
the test. Such a condition results in an increased score. Scores 
may also be increased if a pupil turns the page and starts before 
the signal is given, if he does not know the correct answer but gets 
it by looking at someone else's paper, and by various other causes. 
It is usually impossible to determine the variable errors present 
in the scores of the individual pupils, although this can sometimes 
be done by a more or less detailed investigation. The effect of 
these errors is that the scores of many of the pupils are slightly 
too large or too small and those of a few are very much in error. 
On the other hand, the variable errors cause very little or no change 
in the average. In the long run they are as often positive as nega- 
tive and therefore offset each other in the computation of averages. 
The reliability of the Pressey Primer and the Illinois Gen- 
eral Intelligence Scales. As the two scales named were the only 
ones used more than once in this experiment, they are the only 
ones for which the reliability can be calculated. The coefficients 
of correlation or of reliability,^ the indices of reliability,^ the prob- 
able errors of measurement,^ and the percents these probable errors 
were of the respective medians were calculated.* Throughout the 
discussion of these measures of reliability it should be remembered 
that they were all computed from the use of tests at intervals of 
about six months and one year and therefore should not be ex- 
pected to show as high a degree of reliability as if the time intervals 
had been shorter. In most studies of the reliability of tests the 



^The coefficient of correlation between repetitions or duplicate forms of the same 
test is called the coefficient of reliability. 

^The index of reliability is the square root of the coefficient of reliability. It 
measures the correlation between the score on one trial of a test and the true score. 
This true score is the average of the scores made upon an infinite number of trials of 
the test after these have been corrected for any constant errors. 

'The term "probable error of measurement" bears the same relation to the index 
of reliability that the probable error of estimate bears to the coefficient of reliability. 
It is a measure of the variable error by which a pupil's score upon one trial of a test 
deviates from his true score. The formula is .6745a"vl—r. For o" the average of 
the standard deviations obtained from the scores made on each of two trials is used. 

*The complete tables are to be found in the dissertation by the same title and 
author. 

[73] 



interval between the periods at which the tests were given has not 
exceeded a few days. 

Table XXVI, Part A, shows that there was in general little 
difference in degree of reliability between the Pressey Primer and 
the Illinois General Intelligence Scale, that of the former being 
slightly higher. The average coefficient of reUability was in each 
case about four-tenths for the single half-grade groups and not far 
from seven-tenths for all grades combined. The average indices 
of reliability were somewhat greater than six-tenths and eight- 
tenths, respectively. The probable error of measurement averaged 
about nine points, or 15 percent of the median, in both cases. 
In the case of the Illinois Scale this amounts to almost one year 
of mental age, whereas in that of the Pressey it is somewhat less. 



TABLE XXVI. 



DATA CONCERNING THE INTELLIGENCE TESTS USED 
IN THIS PROJECT 

A. Reliability 



Coefficient of 
Reliability 



Index of 
Reliability 



Pressey (Nov., 1920 and May, 1921) 

Grade Average 11 .46±.02 .67±.02 

Grades Combined || .65±.01 .81±.01 

Illinois (Form 1 in Nov., 1920 and Form 2 in May, 1921) 

GradeAverage 11 .38±.03| .62±.03 

Grades Combined |i .69rb.01 1 .83±.01 

(Form 2 in May, 1921 and Form 1 in Dec, 1921) 

GradeAverage 11 .46±.04| .67±.02 

Grades Combined || .73±.01 | .85±.01 

(Form 1 in Nov., 1920 and in Dec, 1921) 

GradeAverage 11 .32±.04 I .55±.03 

Grades Combined .62±.01 .79±.01 



Probable 
Error of Meas- 
urement 



9 
10 



P.E. Meas. 



Median 



.16 
.15 

.15 
.15 

.14 
.13 

.14 
.15 



B. Correlations Between the Different Tests Used. 



Grade 
Average 



Grades 
Combined 



Pressey and Dearborn (Used at Same Time) . 



Illinois and National ( 

Pressey and Myers 

Kingsbury and Myers ( 

Pressey and Illinois ( 

Dearborn and Illinois ( 

Pressey-Dearborn and Illinois (Used one semester apart) . 

Dearborn and Myers (Used one year apart) . 

Pressey and Myers ( " " " ). 



( " one semester apart) . 

)'. 
). 



.59±.02 
.63±.02 
.29db.03 
.47±.01 
.20±.03 
. 23 ± . 03 
. 36 ± . 03 
.38±.04 
.32±.04 



.78±.01 
.81±.01 
.39±.01 



.52±.01 
.46±.01 



♦In these cases the correlations from only one grade are available. 



[74] 



In other words, the mental ages derived from a single application 
of the tests would be within that distance of the true mental ages 
in only about 50 percent of the cases. 

Certain data as to the reliability of these two scales have been 
given by their authors. The administration of the Pressey scale 
to 365 first, second and third grade pupils gave an average coeffi- 
cient of reliability of .92 between the first and second halves of 
the scale.® With two other groups of pupils numbering slightly 
over 100 each, coefficients of .89 and .92 were obtained.® The 
probable error of measurement was found to be between two and 
three points on the scale. These coefficients are naturally much 
higher and the probable errors much less than those obtained in 
this experiment because of the difference in the intervals between 
testing. The coefficients of reliability for Forms 1 and 2 of the 
Illinois scale are not quite as high as those between the two halves 
of the Pressey scale. Results based upon about 1000 children gave 
an average coefficient of .83 for grades III to VIII and one of 
.92 for the grades combined.'^ The probable error of measurement 
was between five and six points on the scale. These figures also 
show a considerably higher degree of reliability than do those obtained 
by testing at intervals of six months and one year. Inasmuch as the 
scale of the Illinois is finer than that of the Pressey, the probable 
errors are not far from the same when converted into mental ages. 

The coefficients of reliability that are given for two or three 
other group intelligence tests run from about .75 up.® They tend 



^Pressey, L. W. "A Group Scale of Intelligence for Use in the First Three Grades." 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 10, 297-308, September, 1919. 

*Pressey, L. W. "A Group Scale of Intelligence for Use in the First Three Grades." 
Journal of Educational Research, 1, 285-94, April, 1920. 

^Monroe, W. S. "The Illinois Examination." University of Illinois Bulletin, 
Vol. 19, No. 9, Bureau of Educational Research Bulletin No. 6. Urbana: University 
of Illinois, 1921. p. 47-49. 

Monroe, W. S. and Buckingham, B. R. "The Illinois Examination I and II. 
Teacher's Handbook." Bloomington: Public School Publishing Company, 1920, 
p. 31. 

*Colvin, S. S. "Educational Tests at Brown University." School and Society, 
10, 27, July 5, 1919. 

Colvin, S. S. "Some Recent Results Obtained from the Otis Group Intelligence 
Scale." Journal of Educational Research, 3, 1-12, January, 1921. 

Otis, A. S. "An Absolute Point Scale for the Group Measurement of Intel- 

[75] 



to average about .80. Therefore, if these few are typical of similar 
tests in general, it would seem that the Pressey and Illinois scales 
are more reliable than are most group intelligence tests. From 
such a comparative standpoint coefficients of reliability around .90 
and probable errors of measurement of two and five points may 
be said to be rather satisfactory. The differences between these 
figures and those obtained in this project may be largely, if not 
entirely, attributed to the difference in the time elapsing between 
the giving of the tests. 

The correlations between the different group intelligence 
tests used in this experiment. Part B of Table XXVI presents 
the correlations obtained between the different tests used. It will 
be seen that the correlation between the Pressey scale and the 
Dearborn tests and that between the Illinois scale and the National 
tests are fairly high. An average correlation of about .60 when 
pupils are taken by half-grade groups and of about .80 for all 
grades combined is higher than is usually found between group 
intelligence tests. 

The correlations between the results of the tests used at inter- 
vals of six months and one year are considerably lower. This 
would, of course, be expected as they take account not only of 
the differences between the tests but also of changes in the true 
mental abilities of the pupils during the period elapsing between 
the giving of the tests and of diff"erences in the general conditions 
of testing at the two times. On the whole, these correlations do 
not compare unfavorably with similar correlations obtained else- 
where. 

The writer collected data concerning the correlations found 
between different intelligence tests in some fifty cases. In practi- 
cally all of these the different tests were given within a compara- 
tivly short time of each other, usually within the same week. The 
unweighted average of the coefficients of correlation was .62, which 
is only slightly higher than the average correlation by half-grade 
groups given in Part B of Table XXVI and much lower than that 



ligence." Journal of Educational Psychology, 9, 333-47, and 237-61 May, 1918, and 
June, 1918. 

Snarr, O. W. "Reliability of General Intelligence Tests in Classifying High 
School Pupils." Unpublished Thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago, June, 1919. 

[76] 



obtained for the grades combined. This is true although in a 
number of cases the coefficients were based upon several grades 
combined. Only about a dozen of the fifty are as high or higher 
than those of .78 and .81 which were obtained in this experiment 
when the grades were combined. In only one case was there a 
coefficient found higher than .90. Thus it may be said that the 
correlation between the Pressey scale and the Dearborn tests and 
that between the Illinois scale and the National tests were rather 
satisfactory as compared with similar correlations obtained in other 
experiments. 

Although the coefficients given in Part B of Table XXVI were 
obtained from testing at intervals of one and two semesters, yet 
some of them compare favorably with a number of those given 
in the accounts of other experiments. When several half-grade 
groups were combined the coefficients averaged about .46. 

The degree of reliability of single test scores was of concern 
in placing the individual pupils, but in measuring the results of 
the experiment this was not a matter of importance. The average 
used in most cases was the median, and for this the probable error 
is 1.25 (approx.) times the probable error of the distribution divided 
by the square root of the number of cases." As the number of 
pupils included in this experiment was so large, the distribution 
would have had to be very scattering and the probable errors very 
large to cause the medians to be unreliable to any considerable 
degree. The distribution of the 3615 November, 1920, scores upon 
the Illinois scale, for example, had a probable error of 41 points, 
or 4.1 years of mental age. The probable error of the median 
was therefore about .85 point or one month. 



'Yule, G. U. "An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics," London: Charles 
Griffin and Company, 1919, p. 338. 

[77] 



APPENDIX C 



THE OMNIBUS TEST 



As was mentioned In Chapter IV, a test called the Omnibus 
Test was devised by the writer to measure certain achievements 
of the pupils in the upper grades that were not covered by the 
reading and arithmetic tests used. This test was of the true-false 
type. It included seventy-five statements of which approximately 
half were correct and half incorrect. The following gives the first 
ten statements of the test: 

1. Russia produces a large amount of wheat 

The ancient Greeks were famous for their art. 

Charcoal is made from wood 

4.6 is 100 times .46 

A paragraph should be indented 

Italy raises a great deal of flax 

The Roman Empire was not as powerful 

as Greece 

Digestion begins in the mouth 

41/1000 = .41 

A compound sentence has at least two in- 
dependent clauses 

Every fifth statement had to do with the same subject, the five 
subjects included being geography, history, elementary science, 
arithmetic and grammar. The fifteen statements dealing with each 
subject were divided approximately equally between the six 
semesters of work covered and were in all cases based upon material 
mentioned in the outline of the Chicago course of study. The seven- 
ty-five statements were preceded by explicit directions and prelimi- 
nary practise statements. The pupils were instructed to place a plus 
mark after those statements that were correct and a minus sign 
after those that were incorrect. A time limit of four minutes was 
placed upon the test. 



2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 



9. 
10. 



[78] 



THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

THE STATE UNIVERSITY 
URBANA 

DAVID KINLEY, Ph.D., LL.D., President 



The University Includes the Following Departments 

The Graduate School 

The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (Ancient and Modern Languages 
and Literatures; History, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Philosophy, 
Psychology, Education; Mathematics; Astronomy; Geology; Physics; Chemistry; 
Botany, Zoology, Entomology; Physiology, Art and Design) 

The College of Commerce and Business Administration (General Business, 
Banking, Insurance, Accountancy, Railway Administration, Foreign Commerce; 
Courses for Commercial Teachers and Commercial and Civic Secretaries) 

The College of Engineering (Architecture; Architectural, Ceramic, Civil, Elec- 
trical, Mechanical, Mining, Municipal and Sanitary, Railway Engineering, and 
General Engineering Physics) 

The College of Agriculture (Agronomy; Animal Husbandry; Dairy Husbandry; 
Horticulture and Landscape Gardening; Agricultural Extension; Teachers' 
Course; Home Economics) 

The College of Law (Three-year and four-year curriculums based on two years 
and one year of college work respectively) 

The College of Education 

The Curriculum in Journalism 

The Curriculums in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering 

The School of Railway Engineering and Administration 

The School of Music (four-year curriculum) 

The Library School (two-year curriculum for college graduates) 

The College of Medicine (in Chicago) 

The College of Dentistry (in Chicago) 

The School of Pharmacy (in Chicago; Ph.G. and Ph.C. curriculums) 

The Summer Session (eight weeks) 

Experiment Stations and Scientific Bureaus: U. S. Agricultural Experiment 
Station; Engineering and Experiment Station; State Laboratory of Natural 
History; State Entomologist's Office; Biological Experiment Station on Illinois 
River; State Water Survey; State Geological Survey; U. S. Bureau of Mines 
Experiment Station. 

The library collections contain May 1, 1922, 523,230 volumes and 120,151 pam- 
phlets. For catalogs and information address 

THE REGISTRAR 

Urbana, Illinois 




bS.f'^Y OF CONGRESS^ 



020 975 877 5 



BULLETINS OF THE BUREAU OF EDUCATIONAL RE- 
SEARCH, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY 
OF ILLINOIS, URBANA, ILLINOIS 

Price 

No. I. Buckingham, B. R. Bureau of Educational Research, 

Announcement, 1918-19 _ 15 

No. 2. First Annual Report 25 

No. 3. Bamesberger, Velda C. Standard Requirements for 

Memorizing Literary Material .50 

No. 4. Holiey, Charles E. Mental Tests for School Use. 

(Out of print) .50 

No. 5. Monroe, Walter S. Report of Division of Educational 

Tests for 1919-20 25 

No. 6. Monroe, Walter S. The Illinois Examination 50 

No. 7. Monroe, Walter S. Types of Learning Required of 
Pupils in the Seventh and Eighth Grades and in 
the High School 15 

No. 8. Monroe, Walter S. A Critical Study of Certain Silent 

Reading Tests 50 

No. 9. Monroe, Walter S. Written Examinations and Their 

Improvement 50 

No. 10. Bureau of Educational Research. Relation of Size 

of Class to School Efficiency..:. 50 

No. 11. Monroe Walter S. Relation of Sectioning a Class to 

the Effectiveness of Instruction 15 

No. 12. Odell, Charles W. The Use of Intelligence Tests as a 

Basis of School Organization and Instruction SO 



